Sami Leon, Elena Rantou, Jessica Kim, Sungwoo Choi, Nam Hee Choi
{"title":"体外渗透试验数据的生物等效性评估方法比较分析。","authors":"Sami Leon, Elena Rantou, Jessica Kim, Sungwoo Choi, Nam Hee Choi","doi":"10.1002/pst.2434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For topical, dermatological drug products, an in vitro option to determine bioequivalence (BE) between test and reference products is recommended. In particular, in vitro permeation test (IVPT) data analysis uses a reference-scaled approach for two primary endpoints, cumulative penetration amount (AMT) and maximum flux (J<sub>max</sub>), which takes the within donor variability into consideration. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a draft IVPT guidance that includes statistical analysis methods for both balanced and unbalanced cases of IVPT study data. This work presents a comprehensive evaluation of various methodologies used to estimate critical parameters essential in assessing BE. Specifically, we investigate the performance of the FDA draft IVPT guidance approach alongside alternative empirical and model-based methods utilizing mixed-effects models. Our analyses include both simulated scenarios and real-world studies. In simulated scenarios, empirical formulas consistently demonstrate robustness in approximating the true model, particularly in effectively addressing treatment-donor interactions. Conversely, the effectiveness of model-based approaches heavily relies on precise model selection, which significantly influences their results. The research emphasizes the importance of accurate model selection in model-based BE assessment methodologies. It sheds light on the advantages of empirical formulas, highlighting their reliability compared to model-based approaches and offers valuable implications for BE assessments. Our findings underscore the significance of robust methodologies and provide essential insights to advance their understanding and application in the assessment of BE, employed in IVPT data analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":19934,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceutical Statistics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analyses of Bioequivalence Assessment Methods for In Vitro Permeation Test Data.\",\"authors\":\"Sami Leon, Elena Rantou, Jessica Kim, Sungwoo Choi, Nam Hee Choi\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pst.2434\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>For topical, dermatological drug products, an in vitro option to determine bioequivalence (BE) between test and reference products is recommended. In particular, in vitro permeation test (IVPT) data analysis uses a reference-scaled approach for two primary endpoints, cumulative penetration amount (AMT) and maximum flux (J<sub>max</sub>), which takes the within donor variability into consideration. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a draft IVPT guidance that includes statistical analysis methods for both balanced and unbalanced cases of IVPT study data. This work presents a comprehensive evaluation of various methodologies used to estimate critical parameters essential in assessing BE. Specifically, we investigate the performance of the FDA draft IVPT guidance approach alongside alternative empirical and model-based methods utilizing mixed-effects models. Our analyses include both simulated scenarios and real-world studies. In simulated scenarios, empirical formulas consistently demonstrate robustness in approximating the true model, particularly in effectively addressing treatment-donor interactions. Conversely, the effectiveness of model-based approaches heavily relies on precise model selection, which significantly influences their results. The research emphasizes the importance of accurate model selection in model-based BE assessment methodologies. It sheds light on the advantages of empirical formulas, highlighting their reliability compared to model-based approaches and offers valuable implications for BE assessments. Our findings underscore the significance of robust methodologies and provide essential insights to advance their understanding and application in the assessment of BE, employed in IVPT data analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmaceutical Statistics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmaceutical Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2434\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceutical Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2434","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
对于外用皮肤病药物产品,建议采用体外方法来确定试验产品和参照产品之间的生物等效性(BE)。特别是,体外渗透试验(IVPT)数据分析对两个主要终点--累积渗透量(AMT)和最大通量(Jmax)--采用参考标度法,其中考虑了供体内部的变异性。2022 年,美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)发布了 IVPT 指南草案,其中包括 IVPT 研究数据平衡和非平衡情况的统计分析方法。这项工作全面评估了用于估算评估 BE 所必需的关键参数的各种方法。具体来说,我们研究了 FDA IVPT 指南草案方法的性能,以及利用混合效应模型的其他基于经验和模型的方法。我们的分析包括模拟情景和真实世界研究。在模拟场景中,经验公式在逼近真实模型方面始终表现出稳健性,尤其是在有效处理治疗-供体相互作用方面。相反,基于模型的方法的有效性在很大程度上依赖于精确的模型选择,这对其结果有很大影响。这项研究强调了在基于模型的生物多样性评估方法中准确选择模型的重要性。研究揭示了经验公式的优势,强调了与基于模型的方法相比,经验公式的可靠性,并为生物多样性评估提供了有价值的启示。我们的研究结果强调了稳健方法的重要性,并为在 IVPT 数据分析中使用的 BE 评估方法的理解和应用提供了重要启示。
Comparative Analyses of Bioequivalence Assessment Methods for In Vitro Permeation Test Data.
For topical, dermatological drug products, an in vitro option to determine bioequivalence (BE) between test and reference products is recommended. In particular, in vitro permeation test (IVPT) data analysis uses a reference-scaled approach for two primary endpoints, cumulative penetration amount (AMT) and maximum flux (Jmax), which takes the within donor variability into consideration. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a draft IVPT guidance that includes statistical analysis methods for both balanced and unbalanced cases of IVPT study data. This work presents a comprehensive evaluation of various methodologies used to estimate critical parameters essential in assessing BE. Specifically, we investigate the performance of the FDA draft IVPT guidance approach alongside alternative empirical and model-based methods utilizing mixed-effects models. Our analyses include both simulated scenarios and real-world studies. In simulated scenarios, empirical formulas consistently demonstrate robustness in approximating the true model, particularly in effectively addressing treatment-donor interactions. Conversely, the effectiveness of model-based approaches heavily relies on precise model selection, which significantly influences their results. The research emphasizes the importance of accurate model selection in model-based BE assessment methodologies. It sheds light on the advantages of empirical formulas, highlighting their reliability compared to model-based approaches and offers valuable implications for BE assessments. Our findings underscore the significance of robust methodologies and provide essential insights to advance their understanding and application in the assessment of BE, employed in IVPT data analysis.
期刊介绍:
Pharmaceutical Statistics is an industry-led initiative, tackling real problems in statistical applications. The Journal publishes papers that share experiences in the practical application of statistics within the pharmaceutical industry. It covers all aspects of pharmaceutical statistical applications from discovery, through pre-clinical development, clinical development, post-marketing surveillance, consumer health, production, epidemiology, and health economics.
The Journal is both international and multidisciplinary. It includes high quality practical papers, case studies and review papers.