Robust methods in bioequivalence assay; Preliminary results

  • A. V. Niselman
  • M. Garcia Ben
  • M. C. Rubio


The aim of this study is to compare four statistical methods for outlier identification in Bioequivalence tests.

The methods are based in four confidence intervals, ‘parametric’, ‘non- parametric’, ‘robust with the asymptotic distribution of the M-estimator’ and ‘robust with the bootstrap distribution’.

The drug we used was Diltiazen, in a two sequence randomized crossover study design.

The pharmacokinetic parameters measured were the area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC), and the peak drug concentration (CMAX). Time to peak drug concentration (TMAX), was not used here in order to separate the efficiency of the methods from the efficiency of the measurements.

The methods were applied to simulated and experimental data. We made two simulations, one with normal data and another one with outliers data. When simulating normal data all methods showed similar profiles and high power. On the contrary, when simulating experiments with outliers data, the parametric method showed low power, whereas robust methods showed just a slight decrement in power. When we analized experimental data of AUC, if we used the parametric method (recommended by U.S.P), we were not able to conclude Bioequivalence, but with the other methods, this was possi- ble.

This disagreement between parametric and robust procedures was a sign of outliers data.

We conclude that the robust methods in bioequivalence assays help us in the identification of outliers as observations with weight equal zero.


Robust Methods bioequivalence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    U.S.P XXIII. (1995). In vivo Guidances. pg 1923–1932.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    (1992). Rules Governing Medical Products. European Community, vol III, 010/92a, pg 159/161.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hauschke, D.; Steinijans, V. W.; Diletti E. (1990). ‘A distribution free procedure for statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies’. Int. J. of Clin. Pharm. Ther. and Tox., vol 28, nro. 2, pg 72–78.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hampel, F. R.; Ronchetti, E. M.; Rousseaw, P.J. and Stahel, W. J. (1986). ‘Robust statistics the approach based on influence functions’, Ed. Wiley. New York.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Staude, R. G.; Sheater, S. J. (1994). ‘Robust estimation and testing’. Ed. Wiley. New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Welch, B. L. (1947). ‘The generalization of Student's problem when several different population variances are involved’. Biometrics, vol 34, pg 28–35.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Efrom, B.; Tibshirani, R. (1993). ‘An introduction to the Bootstrap’, Ed. Chapman and Hall. New York. London.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vozeh, S.; Taeschner, W.; Wen, K. M. (1990). Pharmacokinetic drug data. Clinical pharmacokinetic drug data Handbook, Adis Press, New Zeland.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aberethy, J. B.; Schwartz, E. L. (1985). Todd. Cromatogr., 216–342,Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shumake, R. C. (1986). ‘PKCALC a Basic Interactive Computer Program for Statistical and Pharmacokinetic Analysis of Data’. Drug Metabolism Reviews, vol 17, 3&4, pg 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. V. Niselman
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • M. Garcia Ben
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • M. C. Rubio
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsFaculty of Pharmacy and BiochemistryBuenos Aires
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics. Faculty of Exact and Natural SciencesCiudad UniversitariaArgentina
  3. 3.University of Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations