Volume 35, Issue 12
Research Article

Consumer's risk in the EMA and FDA regulatory approaches for bioequivalence in highly variable drugs

Joel Muñoz

Department of Statistics, Universitat de Barcelona, Av. Diagonal 643, Barcelona, 08028 Spain

Search for more papers by this author
Jordi Ocaña

Corresponding Author

Department of Statistics, Universitat de Barcelona, Av. Diagonal 643, Barcelona, 08028 Spain

Correspondence to: Jordi Ocaña, Department of Statistics, Faculty of Biology, Av. Diagonal 643, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.

E‐mail: jocana@ub.edu

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 28 December 2015
Citations: 10

Abstract

The 2010 US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency regulatory approaches to establish bioequivalence in highly variable drugs are both based on linearly scaling the bioequivalence limits, both take a ‘scaled average bioequivalence’ approach. The present paper corroborates previous work suggesting that none of them adequately controls type I error or consumer's risk, so they result in invalid test procedures in the neighbourhood of a within‐subject coefficient of variation osf 30% for the reference (R) formulation. The problem is particularly serious in the US Food and Drug Administration regulation, but it is also appreciable in the European Medicines Agency one. For the partially replicated TRR/RTR/RRT and the replicated TRTR/RTRT crossover designs, we quantify these type I error problems by means of a simulation study, discuss their possible causes and propose straightforward improvements on both regulatory procedures that improve their type I error control while maintaining an adequate power. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 10

  • Controlling type I error in the reference‐scaled bioequivalence evaluation of highly variable drugs, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1950, 18, 5, (583-599), (2019).
  • Methods to control the empirical type I error rate in average bioequivalence tests for highly variable drugs, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10.1177/0962280219871589, (096228021987158), (2019).
  • Bioequivalence for highly variable drugs: regulatory agreements, disagreements, and harmonization, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, 10.1007/s10928-019-09623-w, (2019).
  • A comparison of group sequential and fixed sample size designs for bioequivalence trials with highly variable drugs, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 10.1007/s00228-018-2415-7, 74, 5, (549-559), (2018).
  • Summary report of second EUFEPS/AAPS conference on global harmonization in bioequivalence, European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 10.1016/j.ejps.2018.10.019, (2018).
  • Two‐stage designs versus European scaled average designs in bioequivalence studies for highly variable drugs: Which to choose?, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7452, 36, 30, (4777-4788), (2017).
  • Algorithms for evaluating reference scaled average bioequivalence: power, bias, and consumer risk, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7440, 36, 27, (4378-4390), (2017).
  • Testing for bioequivalence of highly variable drugs from TR‐RT crossover designs with heterogeneous residual variances, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1816, 16, 5, (361-377), (2017).
  • Inflation of Type I Error in the Evaluation of Scaled Average Bioequivalence, and a Method for its Control, Pharmaceutical Research, 10.1007/s11095-016-2006-1, 33, 11, (2805-2814), (2016).
  • An iterative method to protect the type I error rate in bioequivalence studies under two‐stage adaptive 2×2 crossover designs, Biometrical Journal, 10.1002/bimj.201900388, 0, 0, (undefined).

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.