The Korean Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology

The Korean Society of Pharmacology (대한약리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Parametric and Bootstrap Method in Bioequivalence Test

  • Ahn, Byung-Jin (Department of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Yim, Dong-Seok (Department of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Published : 2009.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The estimation of 90% parametric confidence intervals (CIs) of mean AUC and Cmax ratios in bioequivalence (BE) tests are based upon the assumption that formulation effects in log-transformed data are normally distributed. To compare the parametric CIs with those obtained from nonparametric methods we performed repeated estimation of bootstrap-resampled datasets. The AUC and Cmax values from 3 archived datasets were used. BE tests on 1,000 resampled data sets from each archived dataset were performed using SAS (Enterprise Guide Ver.3). Bootstrap nonparametric 90% CIs of formulation effects were then compared with the parametric 90% CIs of the original datasets. The 90% CIs of formulation effects estimated from the 3 archived datasets were slightly different from nonparametric 90% CIs obtained from BE tests on resampled datasets. Histograms and density curves of formulation effects obtained from resampled datasets were similar to those of normal distribution. However, in 2 of 3 resampled log (AUC) datasets, the estimates of formulation effects did not follow the Gaussian distribution. Bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) CIs, one of the nonparametric CIs of formulation effects, shifted outside the parametric 90% CIs of the archived datasets in these 2 non-normally distributed resampled log (AUC) datasets. Currently, the 80~125% rule based upon the parametric 90% CIs is widely accepted under the assumption of normally distributed formulation effects in log-transformed data. However, nonparametric CIs may be a better choice when data do not follow this assumption.

Keywords

References

  1. Bonate PL. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation. 1st ed. Springer, New York, p 355−363, 2005
  2. Chow SC. Encyclopedia of biopharmaceutical statistics. 2nd ed. Marcel Dekker, New York, p 83−88, 2003
  3. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the bootstrap. Monographs on statistics and applied probability. 1st ed. Chapman & Hall, New York, p 179−201, 372−391, 1993
  4. EMEA. Questions & Answers on the Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Guideline (EMEA/CHMP/EWP/40326/2006) [EMEA Web site], http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/4032606en.pdf. European Medicines Agency, Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use. Accessed August 10, 2009
  5. FDA. Guidance for industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence January 2001 [CDER Web site], http://www. fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070244.pdf. US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Accessed August 10, 2009
  6. Henderson AR. The bootstrap: a technique for data-driven statistics. Using computer-intensive analyses to explore experimental data. Clin Chim Acta 359: 1−26, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cccn.2005.04.002
  7. Lacey LF, Keene ON, Pritchard JF, Bye A. Common noncompartmental pharmacokinetic variables: are they normally or log-normally distributed? J Biopharm Stat 7: 171−178, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1080/10543409708835177
  8. Midha KK, Ormsby ED, Hubbard JW, McKay G, Hawes EM, Gavalas L, McGilveray IJ. Logarithmic transformation in bioequivalence: application with two formulations of perphenazine. J Pharm Sci 82: 138−144, 1993 https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.2600820205
  9. Pabst G, Jaeger H. Review of methods and criteria for the evaluation of bioequivalence studies. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 38: 5−10, 1990 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00314794
  10. Patterson SD, Jones B. Bioequivalence and the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceut Statist 1: 83−95, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.15
  11. Sprent P, Smeeton NC. Applied nonparametric statistical methods. 3rd ed. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, p 404−437, 2001
  12. Steyn HS, Koeleman HA, Gouws E, Ritschel WA. An approach to select the appropriate statistical method for testing bioequivalence. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 29: 156−160, 1991

Cited by

  1. The Bootstrap in Bioequivalence Studies vol.21, pp.6, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2011.607738
  2. Integrating longitudinal information in hippocampal volume measurements for the early detection of Alzheimer's disease vol.125, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.065