A simple three-step approach for the assessment of bioequivalence is proposed. According to the decision rule of this approach, average bioequivalence is assessed first (Step 1). If approved, then population bioequivalence will be assessed next (Step 2). Again, if approved, then individual bioequivalence can be assessed as the final stage (Step 3). For the evaluation of these bioequivalence criteria, parametric and nonparametric testing procedures are suggested on the original and logarithmic scale of measurement. A clear advantage of these testing procedures is that they can be set up using elementary test statistics and, therefore, they are readily accessible to the practitioners. An example is also presented to illustrate the method.
FDA.Guidance on statistical procedures for bioequivalence studies using a standard two-treatment crossover design. Informal communication by the Division of Bioequivalence, Office of Generic Drugs, Rockville, MD; 1992.
2.
Commission of the European Communities.CPMP Working Party on Efficacy of Medicinal Products. Note for guidance: Investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence; 1991.
3.
AndersonSHauckWW. Considerations of individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm.1990;18(3): 259–273.
4.
HauckWWAndersonS. Individual vs. average bioequivalence: when is average not sufficient. Proceedings of Bio-International 1994. Munich; 1994.
5.
SchallR. A unified view of individual, population and average bioequivalence. Proceedings of Bio-International '94. Munich; 1994.
6.
ChowSCLiuJP. Current issues in bioequivalence trials. Drug Inf J.1995;29(3):795–804.
7.
SteinijansVWHauschkeDSchallR. International harmonization of regulatory requirements for average bioequivalence and current issues in individual bioequivalence. Drug Inf J.1995;29(3): 1055–1062.
8.
GuilbaudO. Exact comparisons of means and within-subject variances in 2 × 2 crossover trials. Drug Inf J.1995;29(3):857–870.
9.
HochbergYTamhaneAC. Multiple comparison procedures.New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987.
10.
GrizzleJE. The two-period changeover design and its use in clinical trials. Biometrics.1965;21:467–480.
11.
GrieveAP. The two-period changeover design in clinical trials. Letter to the editor. Biometrics.1982;38:518.
12.
BarkerNHewsRJHuitsonAPoloniekiJ. The two-period crossover trial. Bull App Stat.1982;9:67–116.
13.
WestlakeWJ. Bioavailability and bioequivalence of pharmaceutical formulations. In: PeaceKE ed. Biopharmaceutical Statistics for Drug Development.New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1988:329–352.
14.
LiuJPWengCS. Estimation of direct formulation effect under log-normal distribution in bioavailability/bioequivalence studies. Stat Med.1992;11:881–896.
15.
LiuJPWengCS. Evaluation of log-transformation in assessing bioequivalence. Comm Stat—Theory Meth.1994;23:421–434.
16.
JonesBKenwardMG. Design and Analysis of Cross-over Trials.London: Chapman and Hall; 1989.
17.
ChowSCLiuJP. Recent statistical developments in bioequivalence trials—a review of the FDA guidance. Drug Inf J.1994;28(3):851–864.
18.
HillsMArmitageP. The two-period cross-over clinical trial. Br J Clin Pharm.1979;8:7–20.
19.
ConoverWJ. Practical Nonparametric Statistics.New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1980.
20.
StatXact. Statistical software for exact nonparametric inference. CYTEL Software Corporation, Cambridge, MA, USA.
21.
LockeCS. An exact confidence interval from untransformed data for decision-making in bioequivalence assessment. J Pharmacokin Biopharm.1984;12:649–655.
22.
VuorinenJTuominenJ. Fieller's confidence intervals for the ratio of two means in the assessment of average bioequivalence from crossover data. Stat Med.1994;13:2531–2545.
23.
LiuJPWengCS. Bias of two one-sided tests procedures in assessment of bioequivalence. Stat Med.1995;14: 853–861.
24.
LiuJPChowSC. On the assessment of variability in bioavailability/bioequivalence studies. Comm Stat—Theory Meth.1992;21:2591–2607.
25.
FisherRA. Statistical methods, experimental design, and scientific inference. In: BennetJH ed. Oxford Science Publications.Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991.
26.
SchuirmannDJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokin Biopharm.1987;15:657–680.
27.
SchuirmannDJ. Confidence intervals for the ratio of two means from a crossover study. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section of the American Statistical Association.1989:121–126.
28.
SAS/STAT. Software for statistical design and analysis. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
29.
AndersonS. Current issues of individual bioequivalence. Drug Inf J.1995;29(3):961–964.
