ArticleThe AAPS journal2024
Evaluation of Incurred Subject Period Re-analysis (ISPR) as a Tool to Distinguish Fraudulent Pharmacokinetic Profile Pairs from Non-fraudulent Pairs.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Duplicate pharmacokinetic profiles in bioequivalence trials is an issue which has caused hundreds of retracted marketing authorizations. No formal test for profile duplication exists in spite of the existence of profile comparison algorithms, so defining a threshold that distinguishes a naturally occurring pair from a duplication remains difficult. An idea called ISPR (incurred subject period analysis) was aired in 2023 and is evaluated in this paper along with three new profile comparison methods. ISPR involves analysis of entire PK-profiles within a study. It is shown that when ISPR is combined with appropriate PK-profile comparison methods, the duplicate pairs display a lower score (better similarity) than pair that do not arise out of duplication. Therefore, ISPR may help establish a threshold that distinguishes fraudulent profile pairs from non-fraudulent profile pairs. ISPR therefore may be used as QA tool, serves as a method by which a CRO can -to some extent- show that their studies do not contain duplicates in the primary analysis, and thus also may be a means by which sponsor can argue that their studies are trustworthy, in case the suspicion about duplication arises. This paper does not introduce a formal test for this type of fraud; rather the authors see it as a first moderate step in that direction. Hopefully, if or when ISPR data is submitted to authorities as part of general dossier submission, data will accumulate to the extent that they may be able to develop models that allow formal testing for profile duplication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39681708What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.