Statistical Analysis
Using a power analysis (expected value, ≥1 – β = 0.8),
it was determined that 40 subjects would be sufficient
for a power of ANOVA ≥0.8 to detect a significant
difference (α = 0.05) in between-formulation 90% CI.21
Assuming a drop-out rate of about 15%, 46 healthy
male Chinese volunteers were enrolled in the present
study.
Cmax, AUC0–t, and AUC0–∞ were considered the primary
variables to assess the bioequivalence between the
test and reference formulations. Two-way ANOVA for
a 2 × 2 crossover design was used to assess the effects
of formulation, period, sequence, and subjects on logtransformed
Cmax, AUC0–t, and AUC0–∞.
22 The nonparametric
signed rank test was used to compare the Tmax
for the 2 formulations. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically
significant. The ratios of the log-transformed Cmax,
AUC0–t, and AUC0–∞ of parent atorvastatin and orthohydroxy-atorvastatin
for both formulations were calculated,
and 90% CIs were obtained. ANOVA was
performed using the F score. The probability of exceeding
the limits of acceptance was obtained by two 1-sided
t tests.22 The 2 formulations were considered bioequivalent
if the 90% CI of the test/reference ratios of AUC
was within the predetermined bioequivalence range of
0.80 to 1.25 and Cmax was within 0.70 to 1.43, according
to the guidelines of the SFDA of the People’s Republic
of China.18
The assessment of the parent atorvastatin was considered
to be primary and essential for the bioequivalence
comparison. The evaluation of the active metabolite,
ortho-hydroxy-atorvastatin, would provide supportive
evidence for the bioequivalence between the test and
reference formulations.
Statistical AnalysisUsing a power analysis (expected value, ≥1 – β = 0.8),it was determined that 40 subjects would be sufficientfor a power of ANOVA ≥0.8 to detect a significantdifference (α = 0.05) in between-formulation 90% CI.21Assuming a drop-out rate of about 15%, 46 healthymale Chinese volunteers were enrolled in the presentstudy.Cmax, AUC0–t, and AUC0–∞ were considered the primaryvariables to assess the bioequivalence between thetest and reference formulations. Two-way ANOVA fora 2 × 2 crossover design was used to assess the effectsof formulation, period, sequence, and subjects on logtransformedCmax, AUC0–t, and AUC0–∞.22 The nonparametricsigned rank test was used to compare the Tmaxfor the 2 formulations. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statisticallysignificant. The ratios of the log-transformed Cmax,AUC0–t, and AUC0–∞ of parent atorvastatin and orthohydroxy-atorvastatinfor both formulations were calculated,and 90% CIs were obtained. ANOVA wasperformed using the F score. The probability of exceedingthe limits of acceptance was obtained by two 1-sidedt tests.22 The 2 formulations were considered bioequivalentif the 90% CI of the test/reference ratios of AUCwas within the predetermined bioequivalence range of0.80 to 1.25 and Cmax was within 0.70 to 1.43, accordingto the guidelines of the SFDA of the People’s Republicof China.18The assessment of the parent atorvastatin was consideredto be primary and essential for the bioequivalence
comparison. The evaluation of the active metabolite,
ortho-hydroxy-atorvastatin, would provide supportive
evidence for the bioequivalence between the test and
reference formulations.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
