在生物等效性研究中选择可信区间:100(1 - 2\(α\)%) 和 100(1 -\(α\)%) 方法

Kexuan Li, Susie Sinks, Peng Sun, Lingli Yang
{"title":"在生物等效性研究中选择可信区间:100(1 - 2\\(α\\)%) 和 100(1 -\\(α\\)%) 方法","authors":"Kexuan Li, Susie Sinks, Peng Sun, Lingli Yang","doi":"10.9734/ajpas/2024/v26i1578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A bioequivalence study is a type of clinical trial designed to compare the biological equivalence of two different formulations of a drug. Such studies are typically conducted in controlled clinical settings with human subjects, who are randomly assigned to receive two formulations. The two formulations are then compared with respect to their pharmacokinetic profiles, which encompass the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination of the drug. Under the guidance from Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for a size-\\(\\alpha\\) bioequivalence test, the standard approach is to construct a 100(1 - 2\\(\\alpha\\))% confidence interval and verify if the confidence interval falls with the critical region. In this work, we clarify that 100(1-2\\(\\alpha\\))% confidence interval approach for bioequivalence testing yields a size-\\(\\alpha\\) test only when the two one-sided tests in TOST are \"equal-tailed\". Furthermore, a 100(1 - \\(\\alpha\\))% confidence interval approach is also discussed in the bioequivalence study.","PeriodicalId":502163,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Probability and Statistics","volume":"46 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choosing Confidence Intervals in Bioequivalence Studies: 100(1 - 2\\\\(\\\\alpha\\\\) )% and 100(1 - \\\\(\\\\alpha\\\\) )% Approaches\",\"authors\":\"Kexuan Li, Susie Sinks, Peng Sun, Lingli Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.9734/ajpas/2024/v26i1578\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A bioequivalence study is a type of clinical trial designed to compare the biological equivalence of two different formulations of a drug. Such studies are typically conducted in controlled clinical settings with human subjects, who are randomly assigned to receive two formulations. The two formulations are then compared with respect to their pharmacokinetic profiles, which encompass the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination of the drug. Under the guidance from Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for a size-\\\\(\\\\alpha\\\\) bioequivalence test, the standard approach is to construct a 100(1 - 2\\\\(\\\\alpha\\\\))% confidence interval and verify if the confidence interval falls with the critical region. In this work, we clarify that 100(1-2\\\\(\\\\alpha\\\\))% confidence interval approach for bioequivalence testing yields a size-\\\\(\\\\alpha\\\\) test only when the two one-sided tests in TOST are \\\"equal-tailed\\\". Furthermore, a 100(1 - \\\\(\\\\alpha\\\\))% confidence interval approach is also discussed in the bioequivalence study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":502163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Probability and Statistics\",\"volume\":\"46 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Probability and Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9734/ajpas/2024/v26i1578\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Probability and Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/ajpas/2024/v26i1578","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物等效性研究是一种临床试验,旨在比较两种不同药物配方的生物等效性。此类研究通常在受控临床环境中进行,受试者被随机分配到两种制剂中。然后比较两种制剂的药代动力学特征,包括药物的吸收、分布、代谢和消除。根据美国食品药品管理局(FDA)的指导,对于大小(\α)生物等效性测试,标准方法是构建一个 100(1 - 2\α\)%置信区间,并验证置信区间是否落在临界区域。在这项工作中,我们明确了生物等效性检验的 100(1-2\(\alpha\))% 置信区间方法只有在 TOST 中的两个单侧检验是 "等尾 "的情况下才会产生大小(\(\alpha\))检验。此外,在生物等效性研究中还讨论了 100(1-\(\alpha\))%置信区间法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Choosing Confidence Intervals in Bioequivalence Studies: 100(1 - 2\(\alpha\) )% and 100(1 - \(\alpha\) )% Approaches
A bioequivalence study is a type of clinical trial designed to compare the biological equivalence of two different formulations of a drug. Such studies are typically conducted in controlled clinical settings with human subjects, who are randomly assigned to receive two formulations. The two formulations are then compared with respect to their pharmacokinetic profiles, which encompass the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination of the drug. Under the guidance from Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for a size-\(\alpha\) bioequivalence test, the standard approach is to construct a 100(1 - 2\(\alpha\))% confidence interval and verify if the confidence interval falls with the critical region. In this work, we clarify that 100(1-2\(\alpha\))% confidence interval approach for bioequivalence testing yields a size-\(\alpha\) test only when the two one-sided tests in TOST are "equal-tailed". Furthermore, a 100(1 - \(\alpha\))% confidence interval approach is also discussed in the bioequivalence study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Monthly Rainfall Forecasting Using High Order Singh’s Fuzzy Time Series Based on Interval Ratio Methods: Case Study Semarang City, Indonesia Three-Parameters Gumbel Distribution: Properties and Application Continuous Erlang Mixtures and their Relation to Exponential Mixtures and Poisson Mixtures Efficiency of Modified Exponential Dual to Ratio-Product-Cum Type Estimator under Stratified Sampling Using Two Auxiliary Variables On Propositions Pertaining to the Riemann Hypothesis III
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1