Indirect bioequivalence assessment using network meta-analyses

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 70, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 947-955

  Ring, A ^a,b   Morris, T B S ^b   Hohl, K ^c   Schall, R ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE   (South Africa)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c Quintiles Biostatistics ^*

^d IQVIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioequivalence; Indirect comparison; Metformin; Mixed treatment comparison

Indexed keywords

ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; METFORMIN;

CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); STATISTICAL MODEL; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCE;

CROSS-OVER STUDIES; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; METFORMIN; MODELS, STATISTICAL; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY;

EID: 84905083479     PISSN: 00316970     EISSN: 14321041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-014-1691-0     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Patterson S, Jones B (2006) Bioequivalence and statistics in clinical pharmacology. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton USA
2. FDA (2003) Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Orally Administered Drug Products - General Considerations.http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm070124.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2014
3. EMA (2010) Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence: CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98 Rev. 1/Corr. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document- library/Scientific-guideline/2010/01/WC500070039.pdf. Accessed 30 April 2014
4. Anderson S, Hauck WW (1996) The transitivity of bioequivalence testing: Potential for drift.Int. J Clin Pharmacol Ther 34(9):369-374 (Pubitemid 26305808)
5. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE,Walter SD (1997) The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50(6):683-691 (Pubitemid 27341818)
6. Lumley T (2002) Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 21(16):2313-2324
7. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC (2011) Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for healthcare decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices-Part 1. Value Health 14:417-428
8. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappelleri JC, Boersma C, Thompson D, Larholt KM, Diaz M, Barrett A (2011) Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices - Part 2. Value Health 14:429-437
9. Gwaza L, Gordon J, Welink J, Potthast H, Hansson H, Stahl M, Garcia-Arieta A (2012) Statistical approaches to indirectly compare bioequivalence between generics: a comparison of methodologies employing artemether/lumefantrine 20/120 mg tablets as prequalified by WHO. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 68(12):1611-1618. doi:10.1007/s00228-012-1396-1
10. Herranz M, Morales-Alcelay S, Corredera-Hernández MT, de la Torre-Alvarado JM, Blázquez-Pérez A, Suárez-Gea ML, Alvarez C, García-Arieta A (2013) Bioequivalence between generic tacrolimus products marketed in Spain by adjusted indirect comparison. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. doi:10.1007/s00228-012-1456-6
11. Stewart LA, Tierney JF (2002) To IPDor not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof 25(1):76-97 (Pubitemid 34157785)
12. Chow SC, Liu J (1997) Meta-analysis for bioequivalence review. J Biopharm Stat 7(1):97-111
13. Liu JP (2004) Bridging bioequivalence studies. J Biopharm Stat 14(4):857-867. doi:10.1081/BIP-200035418
14. Vlahov V, Thyroff-Friesinger U, Koytchev R, Bakracheva N, Gatchev E (2005) Bioequivalence studies with metformin: comparability of reference tablets from different origins. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 43(9):457-462 (Pubitemid 41309606)
15. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M, Peters AL, Tsapas A, Wender R, Matthews DR (2012) Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 35(6):1364-1379, Erratum in: Diabetes Care (2013) 36(2):490
16. NICE (2009) The management of type 2 diabetes. NICE guideline CG87
17. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (2004) Approval package for NDA 21-530 Mobic® (Meloxicam 7.5/5 ml oral suspension) http://www.accessdata. fda.gov/drugsatfda-docs/nda/2004/021530s000-Mobic-Medr.pdf . Accessed 30 April 2014
18. Almeida Lopes R, Rocha Neves FA (2010) Meta-analysis for bioequivalence studies: interchangeability of generic drugs and similar containing hydrochlorothiazide is possible but not for those with Enalapril Maleate. J Bras Nefrol 32(2):173-181
19. FDA (2001) Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm070244.pdf. Accessed 30 April 2014
20. Willavize SA, Morgenthien EA (2006) Comparison of models for average bioequivalence in replicated crossover designs. Pharm Stat 5(3):201-211 (Pubitemid 44400219)
21. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE (2010) Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med 29(7-8):932-944. doi:10.1002/sim.3767
22. Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Higgins JP, Salanti G (2013) Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol 42(1):332-345. doi:10.1093/ije/dys222
23. Ring A, Schall R (2013) Sample size determinations when planning for establishing indirect bioequivalence. Ann Conf Int Soc Clin Biostat Munich. P40 http://www.iscb2013.info/download.html?file=tl-files/ISCB13/downloads/Abstract Book/Poster.pdf . Accessed 30 April 2014