Use of Bioequivalence Tests and Its Properties under Different Sampling Techniques

Main Article Content

Faryal Basharat
Nasir Jamal
Muhammad Hanif
Usman Shahzad

Abstract

Bioequivalence testing is the initial approach for the analysis of quantitative determination of drugs and their metabolism in biological samples. In this research work its applications was tested and reviewed under different sampling techniques. The basic concept of bioequivalence testing crossover design was used to make assessment of medicine for breast cancer methotrexate and tamoxifen. Effectiveness of methotrexate at initial stage was 2.38 and at advance stage it was 1.85 which means it was 43% effective at initial stage while 38% effective in advance stage. Effectiveness of tamoxifen at initial stage 3.19 at advance stage 3.68 which means it was 52% effective at initial stage while 57% effective in advance stage. The relation of bioequivalence testing and distance base inference was highlighted. An attempt was made to analyze the efficiency of both medicines at initial and advance stage of diagnostic of breast cancer.

Keywords:
Bioequivalence tests, quantitative determination, methotrexate, breast cancer.

Article Details

How to Cite
Basharat, F., Jamal, N., Hanif, M., & Shahzad, U. (2020). Use of Bioequivalence Tests and Its Properties under Different Sampling Techniques. Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports, 11(4), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2020/v11i430275
Section
Original Research Article

References

Levy G. The clay feet of bioequivalence. Journal of Pharmaceutics and Pharmacology. 1995;47:975.

Grieve AP. A Bayesian analysis of the two-period crossover design for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1985;28:979-990.

Hua SY, Hawkins DL, Zhou J. Statistical considerations in bioequivalence of two area under the concentration–time curves obtained from serial sampling data. Journal of Applied Statistics. 2013;40(5):1140-1154.

Westlake WJ. Bioequivalence testing a need to rethink. Biometrics. 1981;37(3): 589-594.

Snikeris F, Tingey HB. A two-step method for assessing bioequivalence. Drug Information Journal. 1994;28(3):709-722.

Anderson S, Hauck WW. A new procedure for testing equivalence in comparative bioavailability and other clinical trials. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods. 1983;12(23):2663-2692.

Haidar U. Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. Marcel Dekker. 2007;1(4):2000-2010.

Alvan G. Nonlinear assessment of phenytoin bioavailability. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics. 2016;4(327):336-344.

Hwang D, Hartley HO, Jessen RJ. Bioequivalence tests and equivalence confidence sets. Statistical Science. 1978;11(212):423-431.

Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS. Statistical methods in medical research. John Wiley & Sons. 2008;72(1):64-70.

Chow SC. Bioavailability and bioequivalence in drug development. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics. 2014;6(4):304-312.

Putt ME. Power to detect clinically relevant carry‐over in a series of cross‐over studies. Statistics in Medicine. 2006;25(15):2567-2586.

Bhupathi C, Vajjha VH. Sample size recommendation for a bioequivalent study. Statistics. 2017;77(1):65-71.

Welsh JB, Sapinoso LM, Su AI, Kern SG, Wang-Rodriguez J, Moskaluk CA, Hampton GM. Analysis of gene expression identifies candidate markers and pharmacological targets in prostate cancer. Cancer Research. 2001;61(16): 5974-5978.

Al-Mohizea AM, Kadi AA, Al-Bekairi AM, Al-Balla SA, Al-Yamani MJ, Al-Khamis KI, El-Sayed YM. Bioequivalence evaluation of 320 mg gemifloxacin tablets in healthy volunteers. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2007; 45(11):617-622.

Mandallaz DJ. Mau. Comparison of different methods for decision-making in bio-equivalence assessment. Biometrics. 1991;213:222.

Chow SC, Liu JP. Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1992;26(7): 32-39.

Mastan SK. The basic regulatory con-siderations and prospects for conducting bioavailability/bioequivalence (BA/BE) studies–an overview. 2011;72:47-58.

Matzneller P, Burian A, Martin W, Annoni O, Lauro V, Tacchi R, Zeitlinger M. A randomised, two-period, cross-over, open-label study to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profiles of single doses of two different flurbiprofen 8.75-mg lozenges in healthy volunteers. Pharmacology. 2016;89(3-4):188-191.

Mikkola TS, Savolainen-Peltonen H, Tuomikoski P, Hoti F, Vattulainen P, Gissle PM, Ylikorkala O. Reduced risk of breast cancer mortality in women using postmenopausal hormone therapy: A Finnish nationwide comparative study. Menopause. 2016;23(11):1199-1203.

Vivo lSTI. Guidance for industry. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). 2000;34:23-37.