Skip to main content
Log in

Why Rate of Absorption Inferences in Single Dose Bioequivalence Studies are Often Inappropriate

  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose. Peak drug concentration (Cmax) measures the extremity of drug exposure and is a secondary indicator of the extent of absorption after area under the concentration time curve (AUC). Cmax serves as the indicator of absorption rate in bioequivalence (BE) studies in the US (1). The use of Cmax, not the time to Cmax(Tmax), as the metric to assess absorption rate causes erratic inferences in BE studies, and incorrect conclusions for some. We can improve BE efficiency (i.e., get the answer right the first time), by properly analyzing the time to Cmax(Tmax) instead of Cmax.

Methods. We have previously redirected attention to Tmax as the unconfounded absorption rate variable, instead of Cmax, and have called for equally spaced sampling times during the suspected absorption phase to improve the performance of the rate metric (2). Equal spacing converts Tmax easily into a count variable and we illustrated an appropriate statistical analysis for counts. This paper provides some measurement theory concepts to help judge which is the more appropriate analysis, and also provides parametric confidence limits for Tmax treatment differences. Three separate BE studies are then analyzed by both methods.

Results. By focusing on the differences in conclusions, or inferences, this paper identifies three major issues with the current FDA "recommended” analysis of BE studies. First, Cmax, a continuous variable peak-height or extent measure has usurped Tmax's function and performs erratically as a substitute measure for the rate of absorption. Second, Tmax, should be analyzed as a discrete attribute, not as a continuous variable. Third, since several extent measures (AUC, Cmax), not one, are actually being analyzed, an adjustment for multiple testing is mandatory if we are to maintain the size of the test at the desired α level (13), and not inadvertently use a narrower bioequivalence window than is intended. These actions all can have serious unintended consequences on inferences, including making inappropriate ones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Division of Bioequivalence Guidance Statement. Statistical procedures for bioequivalence studies using a standard two-treatment crossover design. Office of Generic Drugs, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville MD, 1992, pp. 1–13.

  2. R. P. Basson, B. J. Cerimele, K. A. DeSante, and D. C. Howey. Pharmaceutical Research, 13:324–328. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  3. W. Feller. An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications. 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1957, pp. 135–163.

    Google Scholar 

  4. W. S. Sarle. Measurement Theory: Frequently asked questions. Disseminations of the International Statistical Applications Institute, 4th Edition, ACG Press, Inc., Wichita KS, 1:pp. 61–66. 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. McCullagh and J. A. Nelder. Generalized Linear Models. Chapman and Hall, London, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  6. SAS Institute: SAS/STAT Software: The Genmod Procedure, Release 6.09. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, pp. 1–88. 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cytel Software Cor.: StatXact. Statistical Software for Exact Non-parametric Inference, Cytel Software Corp., Cambridge, MA 02139, Chapter 4. 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  8. W. J. Westlake Bioavailability and bioequivalence of pharmaceutical formulations. In: K. E. Peace (eds.), Biopharmaceutical Statistics for Drug Development, Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 329–352. 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. J. Schuirmann. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 15:657–680. 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  10. SAS Institute: SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.3 Edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, 1988, pp. 549–640.

    Google Scholar 

  11. SAS Institute: SAS Technical Report, SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements, Release 6.07, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, pp. 371–405. 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  12. H.-U. Schultz and V. W. Steinijans. Int. J. Clin. Pharmac. Ther. Toxic. 30(Suppl. 1), 1992, S1–S6.

    Google Scholar 

  13. P. H. Westphal and S. S. Young. Resampling-Based Multiple Testing: Examples and Methods for p-value Adjustment. Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY. 1993.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Basson, R.P., Ghosh, A., Cerimele, B.J. et al. Why Rate of Absorption Inferences in Single Dose Bioequivalence Studies are Often Inappropriate. Pharm Res 15, 276–279 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011974803996

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011974803996

Navigation