A SURVEY OF THE LIKELIHOOD APPROACH TO BIOEQUIVALENCE TRIALS

Bioequivalence trials are abbreviated clinical trials whereby a generic drug or new formulation is evaluated to determine if it is "equivalent" to a corresponding previously approved brand-name drug or formulation. In this manuscript, we survey the process of testing bioequivalence and advocate the likelihood paradigm for representing the resulting data as evidence. We emphasize the unique conflicts between hypothesis testing and confidence intervals in this area - which we believe are indicative of the existence of the systemic defects in the frequentist approach - that the likelihood paradigm avoids. We suggest the direct use of profile likelihoods for evaluating bioequivalence and examine the main properties of profile likelihoods and estimated likelihoods under simulation. This simulation study shows that profile likelihoods are a reasonable alternative to the (unknown) true likelihood for a range of parameters commensurate with bioequivalence research. Our study also shows that the standard methods in the current practice of bioequivalence trials offers only weak evidence from the evidential point of view.

RANDOM EFFECTS MODELS IN A META-ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTS WITHIN A GOLD STANDARD IN THE PRESENCE OF MISSING DATA

In evaluating the accuracy of diagnosis tests, it is common to apply two imperfect tests jointly or sequentially to a study population. In a recent meta-analysis of the accuracy of microsatellite instability testing (MSI) and traditional mutation analysis (MUT) in predicting germline mutations of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, a Bayesian approach (Chen, Watson, and Parmigiani 2005) was proposed to handle missing data resulting from partial testing and the lack of a gold standard. In this paper, we demonstrate an improved estimation of the sensitivities and specificities of MSI and MUT by using a nonlinear mixed model and a Bayesian hierarchical model, both of which account for the heterogeneity across studies through study-specific random effects. The methods can be used to estimate the accuracy of two imperfect diagnostic tests in other meta-analyses when the prevalence of disease, the sensitivities and/or the specificities of diagnostic tests are heterogeneous among studies. Furthermore, simulation studies have demonstrated the importance of carefully selecting appropriate random effects on the estimation of diagnostic accuracy measurements in this scenario.