The Bootstrap Percentile in Food and Drug Administration Regulations for Bioequivalence Assessment

Abstract

Nowadays, the bootstrap is one of the most prominent representatives of resampling techniques, especially with respect to their daily use. It is typically applied in situations which are not analytically tractable due to the complexity of the underlying statistical estimation or testing problem, where it is common practice to run a Monte-Carlo algorithm instead of calculating the exact bootstrap. This makes the bootstrap an easy to handle and also a very flexible tool, which, of course, must always be critically looked at before being applied. This is also the case when using the bootstrap to calculate confidence intervals for statistically evaluating the bioequivalence of two formulations of a drug as recommended in the 1997 draft of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance (1). Here, the bootstrap seems to be a sensible way to cope with the analytical problems related to the recently proposed and rather complex measures for assessing population and individual bioequivalence. In this paper, we briefly review the different concepts of bioequivalence and two approaches for measuring the individual and population bioequivalence, namely the moment-based and the probability-based approaches, where the focus is on individual bioequivalence. We then concentrate on the bootstrap percentile interval, which has been considered by the FDA.

Keywords

Bioequivalence Bootstrap percentile Moment-based approach Probability-based approach

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Food and Drug Administration. In Vivo Bioequivalence Studies Based on Population and Individual Bioequivalence Approaches. Guidance for Industry. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research: Draft, October 1997.

Efron

Nonparametric standard errors and confidence intervals (with discussion). Canadian J Stat. 1981;9:139–172.

Efron

The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans. Philadelphia: SIAM; 1982.

Efron

Better bootstrap confidence intervals (with discussion). J Am Stat Assoc. 1987;82:171–200.

Shao

The Jackknife and Bootstrap. New York, NY: Springer; 1995.

Hauschke

Steinijans

The US draft guidance regarding population and individual bioequivalence approaches: Comments by a research-based pharmaceutical company. Stat Med. 2000;19:2769–2774.

Chow

Liu

Current issues in bioequivalence trials. Drug Inf J. 1995;29:795–804.

Anderson

Hauck

Consideration of individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1990;18:259–273.

Chen

Individual bioequivalence—a regulatory update. J Biopharm Stat. 1997;7:5–11.

10.

Hauck

Anderson

Types of bioequivalence and related statistical considerations. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1992;30:181–187.

11.

Hauck

Andersons

Measuring switchability and prescribability: When is average bioequivalence sufficient?

J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1994;22:551–564.

12.

Sheiner

Bioequivalence revisited. Stat Med. 1992;11:1777–1788.

13.

Holder

Hsuan

Moment-based criteria for determining bioequivalence. Biometrika. 1993;80:835–846.

14.

Schall

Luus

On population and individual bioequivalence. Stat Med. 1993;12: 1109–1124.

15.

Schall

Assessment of individual and population bioequivalence using the probability that bioavailabilities are similar. Biometrics. 1995;51:615–626.

16.

Chinchilli

The assessment of individual and population bioequivalence. J Biopharm Stat. 1996;6:1–14.

17.

Patnaik

Lesko

Chen

Williams

Individual bioequivalence. New concepts in the statistical assessment of bioequivalence metrics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1997;33:1–6.

18.

Schall

Williams

Towards a practical strategy for assessing individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1996;24:133–149.

19.

Chen

M-L

Patnaik

Hauck

Schuirmann

Hyslop

Williams

An individual bioequivalence criterion: Regulatory considerations. Stat Med. 2000;19:2821–2842.

20.

Shao

Chow

Wang

The bootstrap procedure in individual bioequivalence. Stat Med. 2000;19:2741–2754.

21.

Shao

Kübler

Pigeot

Consistency of the bootstrap procedure in individual bioequivalence. Biometrika. 2000;87:573–585.

22.

Efron

Tibshirani

An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall; 1993.

23.

Food and Drug Administration. Average, Population, and Individual Bioequivalence Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence. Guidance for Industry. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Draft, August 1999.

24.

Hyslop

Hsuan

Holder

A small sample confidence interval approach to assess individual bioequivalence. Stat Med. 2000;19:2885–2897.

25.

Wellek

On a reasonable disaggregate criterion of population bioequivalence admitting of resampling free testing procedures. Stat Med. 2000;19:2755–2767.