Likelihood approach for evaluating bioequivalence of highly variable drugs

Bioequivalence (BE) is required for approving a generic drug. The two one‐sided tests procedure (TOST, or the 90% confidence interval approach) has been used as the mainstream methodology to test average BE (ABE) on pharmacokinetic parameters such as the area under the blood concentration‐time curve and the peak concentration. However, for highly variable drugs (%CV > 30%), it is difficult to demonstrate ABE in a standard cross‐over study with the typical number of subjects using the TOST because of lack of power. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency recommended similar but not identical reference‐scaled average BE (RSABE) approaches to address this issue. Although the power is improved, the new approaches may not guarantee a high level of confidence for the true difference between two drugs at the ABE boundaries. It is also difficult for these approaches to address the issues of population BE (PBE) and individual BE (IBE). We advocate the use of a likelihood approach for representing and interpreting BE data as evidence. Using example data from a full replicate 2 × 4 cross‐over study, we demonstrate how to present evidence using the profile likelihoods for the mean difference and standard deviation ratios of the two drugs for the pharmacokinetic parameters. With this approach, we present evidence for PBE and IBE as well as ABE within a unified framework. Our simulations show that the operating characteristics of the proposed likelihood approach are comparable with the RSABE approaches when the same criteria are applied. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Comparison of models for average bioequivalence in replicated crossover designs

Average bioequivalence (ABE) has been the regulatory standard for bioequivalence (BE) since the 1990s. BE studies are commonly two-period crossovers, but may also use replicated designs. The replicated crossover will provide greater power for the ABE assessment. FDA has recommended that ABE analysis of replicated crossovers use a model which includes terms for separate within- and between-subject components for each formulation and which allows for a subject x formulation interaction component. Our simulation study compares the performance of four alternative mixed effects models: the FDA model, a three variance component model proposed by Ekbohm and Melander (EM), a random intercepts and slopes model (RIS) proposed by Patterson and Jones, and a simple model that contains only two variance components. The simple model fails (when not 'true') to provide adequate coverage and it accepts the hypothesis of equivalence too often. FDA and EM models are frequently indistinguishable and often provide the best performance with respect to coverage and probability of concluding BE. The RIS model concludes equivalence too often when both the within- and between-subject variance components differ between formulations. The FDA analysis model is recommended because it provides the most detail regarding components of variability and has a slight advantage over the EM model in confidence interval length.     

Controlling type I error in the reference‐scaled bioequivalence evaluation of highly variable drugs

Reference‐scaled average bioequivalence (RSABE) approaches for highly variable drugs are based on linearly scaling the bioequivalence limits according to the reference formulation within‐subject variability. RSABE methods have type I error control problems around the value where the limits change from constant to scaled. In all these methods, the probability of type I error has only one absolute maximum at this switching variability value. This allows adjusting the significance level to obtain statistically correct procedures (that is, those in which the probability of type I error remains below the nominal significance level), at the expense of some potential power loss. In this paper, we explore adjustments to the EMA and FDA regulatory RSABE approaches, and to a possible improvement of the original EMA method, designated as HoweEMA. The resulting adjusted methods are completely correct with respect to type I error probability. The power loss is generally small and tends to become irrelevant for moderately large (affordable in real studies) sample sizes.     

On population‐based measures of agreement for binary classifications

The authors describe a model‐based kappa statistic for binary classifications which is interpretable in the same manner as Scott's pi and Cohen's kappa, yet does not suffer from the same flaws. They compare this statistic with the data‐driven and population‐based forms of Scott's pi in a population‐based setting where many raters and subjects are involved, and inference regarding the underlying diagnostic procedure is of interest. The authors show that Cohen's kappa and Scott's pi seriously underestimate agreement between experts classifying subjects for a rare disease; in contrast, the new statistic is robust to changes in prevalence. The performance of the three statistics is illustrated with simulations and prostate cancer data.