FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1503770098> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1503770098 endingPage "453" @default.
• W1503770098 startingPage "452" @default.
• W1503770098 abstract "I read with interest the paper by Del Tacca et al. 1. I agree that verification of the bioavailability of marketed pharmaceutical products is an interesting topic, since not all marketed products have been shown to be bioequivalent to the reference product. It is only possible to believe naively that all products on the market are bioequivalent with the reference product from the complete ignorance of the pharmaceutical legislation of the European Union 2. Therefore, a list similar to the FDA Orange Book 3, which identifies the (bio)equivalent products and its reference product, is essential for prescribers. Interestingly, the legislation allowing the authorization of products with unknown bioavailability (e.g. bibliographical applications), but with the dosage instructions of the reference product, or the absence of a ‘European Orange Book’ are not criticized. On the contrary, the criticism is motivated by the substitution policies, which affect economically the reference products and prescribers, and are focused on the second-entry products that assure best the safety and efficacy profile and interchangeability with the reference product. Average bioequivalence is not only a surrogate of therapeutic equivalence but also of equivalent biopharmaceutical quality, which assures that generic and reference products will behave in the same way in all individual patients, irrespective of their demographics, concomitant medication or illnesses. From my point of view, this failed bioequivalence study has been used as an excuse to criticize the authorized generic pharmaceutical products and the substitution policies, but this is not scientifically correct for the following reasons. First, it would be convenient to distinguish between bioequivalence (i.e. 90% CI within the acceptance limits), bioinequivalence (90% CI completely outside of the acceptance limits) and non-equivalence (90% CI with some part inside and some part outside of the acceptance limits). In practical terms, it is necessary to conclude inequivalence in order to conclude that a generic is not similar to the reference product, since non-equivalence is inconclusive and another study with more statistical power (i.e. a lower variability or a higher sample size) might be able to conclude equivalence. In statistical terms, it is incorrect to conclude that one of the generic products is not equivalent simply because the authors were unable to conclude equivalence (90% CI for Cmax 0.7921, 1.0134). The inability to reject the null hypothesis does not support the validity of the null hypothesis. Only the alternative hypothesis can be proved in a test of hypothesis. In bioequivalence studies the null hypothesis is that the products are inequivalent and the alternative hypothesis is that the products are equivalent. In other words, absence of evidence (of bioequivalence) is not evidence of absence (of bioequivalence). On the contrary, the study results suggest that a study with lower variability or higher sample size would be able to show bioequivalence since the lower boundary of the 90% CI is very close to the acceptance range. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the marketing authorization holder will have sponsored a bioequivalence study that was able to conclude equivalence. In this respect, it is surprising that this paper was accepted without requiring the identification of the products under investigation. Presently, the study cannot be replicated, the Marketing Authorization Holders cannot defend themselves by submitting evidence of the bioequivalence of the products in another bioequivalence study and it is not possible to verify if they are products approved based on bioequivalence or not. Second, the authors claim that the reference product showed 8.5 and 5.4% greater AUC, but it is not statistically appropriate to give validity to a difference in point estimates that was not able to reach statistical significance. As all 90% confidence intervals included 100%, this study was not able to find any statistically significant difference between products, which, at the same time, is not enough to conclude equivalence because a large variability makes the study inconclusive. In addition, the study results show some inconsistencies that cast doubt on its correctness. According to the authors the AUC CV was 27.4% and the Cmax CV was 27.6%, which illustrates that the statistical analysis has been performed on the combined data from the three formulations. If this were the case, the width of the 90% CI would be the same for all three comparisons. However, the width of all three comparisons is different, which shows that the three comparisons have been calculated with a different CV, some of them higher than 30% in contrast to the authors' claim. Many other statements from the authors deserve a comment, but there is no room for more. In my opinion, this is enough to illustrate that the paper by Del Tacca et al. 1 describes an inconclusive study and only adds noise to the debate on the validity of bioequivalence as demonstration of therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability in case of generic substitution. Alfredo García Arieta is a bioequivalence assessor in a regulatory agency." @default.
• W1503770098 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1503770098 creator A5043905754 @default.
• W1503770098 date "2010-04-14" @default.
• W1503770098 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W1503770098 title "The failure to show bioequivalence is not evidence against generics" @default.
• W1503770098 cites W1997614273 @default.
• W1503770098 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03684.x" @default.
• W1503770098 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2949920" @default.
• W1503770098 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20716246" @default.
• W1503770098 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W1503770098 type Work @default.
• W1503770098 sameAs 1503770098 @default.
• W1503770098 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W1503770098 countsByYear W15037700982012 @default.
• W1503770098 countsByYear W15037700982013 @default.
• W1503770098 countsByYear W15037700982014 @default.
• W1503770098 countsByYear W15037700982015 @default.
• W1503770098 countsByYear W15037700982021 @default.
• W1503770098 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1503770098 hasAuthorship W1503770098A5043905754 @default.
• W1503770098 hasBestOaLocation W15037700982 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C108759981 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C150903083 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C155202549 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C162118730 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C181389837 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C2777589142 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C2779606619 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C2781047461 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C2910001868 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C42404028 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C60644358 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConcept C98274493 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C108759981 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C112930515 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C144133560 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C150903083 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C155202549 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C162118730 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C17744445 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C181389837 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C199360897 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C199539241 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C2777351106 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C2777589142 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C2779606619 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C2781047461 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C2910001868 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C38652104 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C41008148 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C42404028 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C60644358 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C71924100 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C86803240 @default.
• W1503770098 hasConceptScore W1503770098C98274493 @default.
• W1503770098 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1503770098 hasLocation W15037700981 @default.
• W1503770098 hasLocation W15037700982 @default.
• W1503770098 hasLocation W15037700983 @default.
• W1503770098 hasLocation W15037700984 @default.
• W1503770098 hasOpenAccess W1503770098 @default.
• W1503770098 hasPrimaryLocation W15037700981 @default.
• W1503770098 hasRelatedWork W1512920926 @default.
• W1503770098 hasRelatedWork W1964166318 @default.
• W1503770098 hasRelatedWork W1979918422 @default.
• W1503770098 hasRelatedWork W1996505306 @default.
• W1503770098 hasRelatedWork W2107328892 @default.
• W1503770098 hasRelatedWork W2148705025 @default.
• W1503770098 hasRelatedWork W228729118 @default.
• W1503770098 hasRelatedWork W2592135652 @default.
• W1503770098 hasRelatedWork W2895952726 @default.
• W1503770098 hasRelatedWork W2911342550 @default.
• W1503770098 hasVolume "70" @default.
• W1503770098 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1503770098 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1503770098 magId "1503770098" @default.
• W1503770098 workType "article" @default.