Loading…

Some Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence

New approaches to population bioequivalence (PBE) and individual bioequivalence (IBE) have been motivated by the limitations of average bioequivalence (ABE) to handle unequal variances and subject-by-formulation interaction. The criteria for PBE and IBE described in the Food and Drug Administration...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Drug information journal 2001, Vol.35 (3), p.893-899
Main Author: Steinijans, Volker W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13
container_end_page 899
container_issue 3
container_start_page 893
container_title Drug information journal
container_volume 35
creator Steinijans, Volker W.
description New approaches to population bioequivalence (PBE) and individual bioequivalence (IBE) have been motivated by the limitations of average bioequivalence (ABE) to handle unequal variances and subject-by-formulation interaction. The criteria for PBE and IBE described in the Food and Drug Administration draft guidance employ aggregate criteria that combine information on differences in bioavailability between formulation means, and differences in bioavailability variation of formulations between and within subjects. Examples from replicate design studies have demonstrated that the trade-off in means offered by the scaled aggregate criterion may result in clinically unacceptable decisions in favor of IBE, although ABE does not hold. Concerning the statistical methods, there are at least three conceptual issues that are still unresolved. First, aggregate hypotheses on the logarithmic scale have no obvious translation into the original scale. Second, scaling corresponds to a modification of the bioequivalence acceptance limits, and is an issue independent of IBE, PBE, and ABE, but is handled differently for IBE and PBE than for ABE. Third, the proposed criteria do not mandate hierarchical testing (first means, then variances, lastly subject-by-formulation interaction). If, despite major clinical reservations, IBE is further pursued, statistical research should focus on disaggregate criteria that allow exact stepwise procedures for evaluating untransformed parameters.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/009286150103500328
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_275004424</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_009286150103500328</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2450780194</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFLw0AQhYMoWGr_gKdFPTZ2drPJbo61VC0UFNSrYbLZ1ZQ0m2aTgv_era14EJ3LDMP33gwvCM4pXFMqxAQgZTKhMVCIYoCIyaNgwGgiQy6BH3_PIoXTYOTcCnylMhZMDoLXJ7vWZGZrpZuux4osnOu1I2VNundN5luseuxKWxNryHSrW3zTY_Jom776Wo8J1gVZ1EW5LYud_qa0etOXXqe951lwYrByenTow-Dldv48uw-XD3eL2XQZqhjSLhQ5NRoTHkGeJhxEgUpjzlHryFBpIFU5CpYIXYCkEUplEsko5aksgCHSaBhc7H2b1m78_122sn1b-5MZEz4Tzhn30OWfEI9BSKDpjmJ7SrXWuVabrGnLNbYfGYVsl3f2O28vujpYo1NYmRZrVbofJQUqWOyxyR5zPsaf6_8YfwLNBYtA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>275004424</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Some Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence</title><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Steinijans, Volker W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Steinijans, Volker W.</creatorcontrib><description>New approaches to population bioequivalence (PBE) and individual bioequivalence (IBE) have been motivated by the limitations of average bioequivalence (ABE) to handle unequal variances and subject-by-formulation interaction. The criteria for PBE and IBE described in the Food and Drug Administration draft guidance employ aggregate criteria that combine information on differences in bioavailability between formulation means, and differences in bioavailability variation of formulations between and within subjects. Examples from replicate design studies have demonstrated that the trade-off in means offered by the scaled aggregate criterion may result in clinically unacceptable decisions in favor of IBE, although ABE does not hold. Concerning the statistical methods, there are at least three conceptual issues that are still unresolved. First, aggregate hypotheses on the logarithmic scale have no obvious translation into the original scale. Second, scaling corresponds to a modification of the bioequivalence acceptance limits, and is an issue independent of IBE, PBE, and ABE, but is handled differently for IBE and PBE than for ABE. Third, the proposed criteria do not mandate hierarchical testing (first means, then variances, lastly subject-by-formulation interaction). If, despite major clinical reservations, IBE is further pursued, statistical research should focus on disaggregate criteria that allow exact stepwise procedures for evaluating untransformed parameters.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2168-4790</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0092-8615</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-4804</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2164-9200</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/009286150103500328</identifier><identifier>CODEN: DGIJB9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Bioavailability ; Bioequivalence ; Biological and medical sciences ; Criteria ; General pharmacology ; Medical sciences ; Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenetics. Drug-receptor interactions ; Pharmacology. Drug treatments ; Statistical methods ; Statistics</subject><ispartof>Drug information journal, 2001, Vol.35 (3), p.893-899</ispartof><rights>2001 Drug Information Association</rights><rights>2001 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Drug Information Association, Inc 2001.</rights><rights>Copyright Drug Information Association Jul-Sep 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,780,784,4024,4050,4051,25140,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1101725$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Steinijans, Volker W.</creatorcontrib><title>Some Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence</title><title>Drug information journal</title><description>New approaches to population bioequivalence (PBE) and individual bioequivalence (IBE) have been motivated by the limitations of average bioequivalence (ABE) to handle unequal variances and subject-by-formulation interaction. The criteria for PBE and IBE described in the Food and Drug Administration draft guidance employ aggregate criteria that combine information on differences in bioavailability between formulation means, and differences in bioavailability variation of formulations between and within subjects. Examples from replicate design studies have demonstrated that the trade-off in means offered by the scaled aggregate criterion may result in clinically unacceptable decisions in favor of IBE, although ABE does not hold. Concerning the statistical methods, there are at least three conceptual issues that are still unresolved. First, aggregate hypotheses on the logarithmic scale have no obvious translation into the original scale. Second, scaling corresponds to a modification of the bioequivalence acceptance limits, and is an issue independent of IBE, PBE, and ABE, but is handled differently for IBE and PBE than for ABE. Third, the proposed criteria do not mandate hierarchical testing (first means, then variances, lastly subject-by-formulation interaction). If, despite major clinical reservations, IBE is further pursued, statistical research should focus on disaggregate criteria that allow exact stepwise procedures for evaluating untransformed parameters.</description><subject>Bioavailability</subject><subject>Bioequivalence</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>General pharmacology</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenetics. Drug-receptor interactions</subject><subject>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><issn>2168-4790</issn><issn>0092-8615</issn><issn>2168-4804</issn><issn>2164-9200</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEFLw0AQhYMoWGr_gKdFPTZ2drPJbo61VC0UFNSrYbLZ1ZQ0m2aTgv_era14EJ3LDMP33gwvCM4pXFMqxAQgZTKhMVCIYoCIyaNgwGgiQy6BH3_PIoXTYOTcCnylMhZMDoLXJ7vWZGZrpZuux4osnOu1I2VNundN5luseuxKWxNryHSrW3zTY_Jom776Wo8J1gVZ1EW5LYud_qa0etOXXqe951lwYrByenTow-Dldv48uw-XD3eL2XQZqhjSLhQ5NRoTHkGeJhxEgUpjzlHryFBpIFU5CpYIXYCkEUplEsko5aksgCHSaBhc7H2b1m78_122sn1b-5MZEz4Tzhn30OWfEI9BSKDpjmJ7SrXWuVabrGnLNbYfGYVsl3f2O28vujpYo1NYmRZrVbofJQUqWOyxyR5zPsaf6_8YfwLNBYtA</recordid><startdate>2001</startdate><enddate>2001</enddate><creator>Steinijans, Volker W.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Pergamon Press</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2001</creationdate><title>Some Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence</title><author>Steinijans, Volker W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Bioavailability</topic><topic>Bioequivalence</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>General pharmacology</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenetics. Drug-receptor interactions</topic><topic>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Steinijans, Volker W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Drug information journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Steinijans, Volker W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Some Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence</atitle><jtitle>Drug information journal</jtitle><date>2001</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>893</spage><epage>899</epage><pages>893-899</pages><issn>2168-4790</issn><issn>0092-8615</issn><eissn>2168-4804</eissn><eissn>2164-9200</eissn><coden>DGIJB9</coden><abstract>New approaches to population bioequivalence (PBE) and individual bioequivalence (IBE) have been motivated by the limitations of average bioequivalence (ABE) to handle unequal variances and subject-by-formulation interaction. The criteria for PBE and IBE described in the Food and Drug Administration draft guidance employ aggregate criteria that combine information on differences in bioavailability between formulation means, and differences in bioavailability variation of formulations between and within subjects. Examples from replicate design studies have demonstrated that the trade-off in means offered by the scaled aggregate criterion may result in clinically unacceptable decisions in favor of IBE, although ABE does not hold. Concerning the statistical methods, there are at least three conceptual issues that are still unresolved. First, aggregate hypotheses on the logarithmic scale have no obvious translation into the original scale. Second, scaling corresponds to a modification of the bioequivalence acceptance limits, and is an issue independent of IBE, PBE, and ABE, but is handled differently for IBE and PBE than for ABE. Third, the proposed criteria do not mandate hierarchical testing (first means, then variances, lastly subject-by-formulation interaction). If, despite major clinical reservations, IBE is further pursued, statistical research should focus on disaggregate criteria that allow exact stepwise procedures for evaluating untransformed parameters.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/009286150103500328</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2168-4790
ispartof Drug information journal, 2001, Vol.35 (3), p.893-899
issn 2168-4790
0092-8615
2168-4804
2164-9200
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_275004424
source Springer Link
subjects Bioavailability
Bioequivalence
Biological and medical sciences
Criteria
General pharmacology
Medical sciences
Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenetics. Drug-receptor interactions
Pharmacology. Drug treatments
Statistical methods
Statistics
title Some Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T14%3A05%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Some%20Conceptual%20Issues%20in%20the%20Evaluation%20of%20Average,%20Population,%20and%20Individual%20Bioequivalence&rft.jtitle=Drug%20information%20journal&rft.au=Steinijans,%20Volker%20W.&rft.date=2001&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=893&rft.epage=899&rft.pages=893-899&rft.issn=2168-4790&rft.eissn=2168-4804&rft.coden=DGIJB9&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/009286150103500328&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2450780194%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-7b1fea6430b96407daceab4aee3f18f09cba7267ed0813a8cf68211498d02aa13%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=275004424&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_009286150103500328&rfr_iscdi=true