Bioequivalence Testing Rationale and Principles

2009 ◽  
pp. 2-9
Keyword(s):  
Bioequivalence Testing

In Vitro Bioequivalence Testing

2003 ◽  
pp. 449-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hansheng Wang ◽  
Ying Zhang ◽  
Jun Shao
Keyword(s):  
Bioequivalence Testing

scholarly journals Bioequivalence testing of immunosuppressants: concepts and misconceptions

2010 ◽  
Vol 77 ◽  
pp. S1-S7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uwe Christians ◽  
Jelena Klawitter ◽  
Claudia F. Clavijo
Keyword(s):  
Bioequivalence Testing

scholarly journals Efficient model-based bioequivalence testing

Biostatistics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathrin Möllenhoff ◽  
Florence Loingeville ◽  
Julie Bertrand ◽  
Thu Thuy Nguyen ◽  
Satish Sharan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Geometric Mean ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Type I ◽  
Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Type I Errors ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Bioequivalence Testing

Summary The classical approach to analyze pharmacokinetic (PK) data in bioequivalence studies aiming to compare two different formulations is to perform noncompartmental analysis (NCA) followed by two one-sided tests (TOST). In this regard, the PK parameters area under the curve (AUC) and $C_{\max}$ are obtained for both treatment groups and their geometric mean ratios are considered. According to current guidelines by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, the formulations are declared to be sufficiently similar if the $90\%$ confidence interval for these ratios falls between $0.8$ and $1.25 $. As NCA is not a reliable approach in case of sparse designs, a model-based alternative has already been proposed for the estimation of $\rm AUC$ and $C_{\max}$ using nonlinear mixed effects models. Here we propose another, more powerful test than the TOST and demonstrate its superiority through a simulation study both for NCA and model-based approaches. For products with high variability on PK parameters, this method appears to have closer type I errors to the conventionally accepted significance level of $0.05$, suggesting its potential use in situations where conventional bioequivalence analysis is not applicable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document