Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34465979›Full record

ArticleDrug design, development and therapy2021

Multivariate Assessment for Bioequivalence Based on the Correlation of Random Effect.

Hyungmi An, Dongseong Shin

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Drug design, development and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hyungmi AnInstitute of Convergence Medicine, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Dongseong ShinDepartment of Pharmacology, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4227-374X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveBioequivalence tests are fundamental step in assessing the equivalence in bioavailability between a test and reference product. In practice, two separate linear mixed models (LMMs) with random subject effects, which have an area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and the peak concentration (C

methodsThree pharmacokinetic datasets, fixed-dose combination (naproxen and esomeprazole), tramadol and fimasartan data were analyzed. We compared the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of a test product to a reference product using the multivariate HGLM and two conventional separate LMMs.

resultsWe found that the 90% CIs for the GMRs of both AUC and C

conclusionThis multivariate HGLM had good performance in the bioequivalence test with multiple endpoints. This method would provide a more reasonable option to reduce the 90% CI by adding correlation parameters and thus an advantage especially in evaluating the bioequivalence of highly variable drugs with broad 90% CIs.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalArea Under CurveBiological AvailabilityBiphenyl CompoundsDatasets as TopicDrug CombinationsEsomeprazoleHumansLinear ModelsMaleMultivariate AnalysisNaproxenPyrimidinesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTetrazolesTherapeutic EquivalencyBiphenyl CompoundsDrug CombinationsEsomeprazolefimasartanNaproxenPyrimidinesTetrazolesTramadolbioequivalence testcorrelated multiple responsesH-likelihoodmultivariate HGLMmultivariate random effects model

Identifiers

PMID34465979
PMCPMC8396372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.