Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5351/KJAS.2010.23.1.139

Individual Bioequivalence Tests under 3 X 2 Design  

Jung, Gyu-Jin (Department of Business Statistics, Hannam University)
Lim, Nam-Kyoo (National Clinical Research Coordination Center, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
Park, Sang-Gue (Department of Statistics, Chung-Ang University)
Publication Information
The Korean Journal of Applied Statistics / v.23, no.1, 2010 , pp. 139-150 More about this Journal
Abstract
In recent years, more generic drug products became available. The current regulation for assessing the bioequivalence of two drug formulations is based on the concept of average bioequivalence. This approach has been indicated to be insufficient for assessing switchability between two drug formulations and US FDA has adopted individual bioequivalence as one of the bioequivalence criterion since 2001. The US FDA recommends that individual bioequivalence be assessed based on $2\;{\times}\;4$ crossover design, while a $2\;{\times}\;3$ crossover design may be used as an alternative design to reduce the length and cost of the study. In this paper, a statistical procedure for assessment of individual bioequivalence under $3\;{\times}\;2$ crossover designs is proposed and some statistical points are discussed with $2\;{\times}\;3$ crossover design and $2\;{\times}\;3$ extra-reference design through simulation studies.
Keywords
Cross-over design; extra-reference design; individual bioequivalence;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 US Food and Drug Administration (1992). Guidance on Statistical procedures for Bioequivalence using a standard two-treatment crossover design, Rockville, MD.
2 US Food and Drug Administration (2001). Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence, Rockville, MD.
3 Anderson, S. and Hauck, W. W. (1990). Consideration of individual bioequivalence, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, 18, 259-273.   DOI
4 Hyslop, T., Hsuan, F. and Holder, D. J. (2000). A small sample confidence interval approach to assess individual bioequivalence, Statistics in Medicine, 19, 2885-2897.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Chow, S. C., Shao, J. and Wang, H. (2002). Individual bioequivalence testing under 2 ${\times}$ 3 designs, Statistics in Medicine, 21, 629-648.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Esinhart, J. D. and Chinchilli, V. M. (1994). Extension to the use of tolerance intervals for the assessment of individual bioequivalence, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 4, 39-52.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Howe, W. G. (1974). Approximate confidence limits on the mean of X + Y where X and Y are two tabled independent random variables, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 789-794.   DOI
8 Sheiner, L. B. (1992). Bioequivalence revisited, Statistics in Medicine, 11, 1777-1788.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Schall, R. and Luus, H. G. (1993). On population and individual bioequivalence, Statistics in Medicine, 12, 1109-1124.   DOI   ScienceOn