Nicolas P, Tod M, Petitjean O
Département de Pharmacologie-Toxicologie Biologique, CHU Bobigny, Paris XIII.
Therapie. 1993 Jan-Feb;48(1):15-22.
To declare bioequivalent two different formulations of one active drug, bioavailability studies are conducted, usually based on area under the plasma concentration-time curves and peak concentrations. The decision follows a statistical basis with right statement of the hypotheses of bioequivalence that are described. This procedure allows to control the consumer risk of falsely accepting bioequivalence while minimizing the new formulation risk of erroneously rejecting bioequivalence. Six decision rules meeting these criteria are reviewed and compared with numerical data: classic confidence interval; symmetric confidence interval; Hauck-Anderson method; two one-sided tests procedure; bayesian method; non parametric confidence interval. The six rules all have very similar performance. However, the bayesian procedure which gives a probability of the location of the true relative bioavailability could likely complete the two one-sided tests procedure and/or the classic confidence interval method that are recommended in regulatory guidelines. Some other statistical points that have received different interpretation in the international regulations are finally evoked and discussed.
为声明一种活性药物的两种不同制剂具有生物等效性,通常基于血浆浓度-时间曲线下面积和峰浓度进行生物利用度研究。该判定基于统计学依据,并正确阐述了所描述的生物等效性假设。此程序能够控制消费者错误接受生物等效性的风险,同时将新制剂错误拒绝生物等效性的风险降至最低。本文回顾了符合这些标准的六条判定规则,并与数值数据进行了比较:经典置信区间;对称置信区间;豪克-安德森方法;双单侧检验程序;贝叶斯方法;非参数置信区间。这六条规则的性能非常相似。然而,给出真实相对生物利用度位置概率的贝叶斯程序可能会完善监管指南中推荐的双单侧检验程序和/或经典置信区间方法。最后引出并讨论了在国际法规中得到不同解释的一些其他统计学要点。