Professor Endrenyi’s Legacy: An Evaluation of the Regulatory Requirement “Fixed Effects, Rather Than Random Effects, Should Be Used for All Terms”

Purpose: In the latest revision of the guideline for evaluation of bioequivalence (BE), European regulators introduced the requirement for using subjects as fixed factors in the underlying statistical models, even in replicate and semi-replicate studies. The implication was that estimates of within-...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Anders Fuglsang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-08-01
Series:Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences
Online Access:https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/jpps/index.php/JPPS/article/view/31872
_version_ 1827163447007117312
author Anders Fuglsang
author_facet Anders Fuglsang
author_sort Anders Fuglsang
collection DOAJ
description Purpose: In the latest revision of the guideline for evaluation of bioequivalence (BE), European regulators introduced the requirement for using subjects as fixed factors in the underlying statistical models, even in replicate and semi-replicate studies. The implication was that estimates of within-subject variability were derived with a linear model rather than with a mixed model based on restricted maximum likelihood (REML). While REML-based methods are generally thought to give rise to less biased estimates of variance components, there have been no studies that compared the quality of REML-based estimates and estimates derived via linear models. Methods: A publication by Endrenyi and Tothfalusi from 1999 described simulations in a fashion that is useful for testing the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) requirement.  This study defines 7 scenarios within which 10,000 individual 2-sequence, 2-treatment, 4-period trials are simulated and makes a comparison of the quality of estimates. Results: It is concluded that estimates based on REML are closer to the true values than estimates based on linear models, but significant differences are only shown in two of the seven scenarios tested.  REML-based estimators have less variability. Both types of estimates appear negatively biased and will therefore decrease the width of the acceptance range.
first_indexed 2024-03-12T20:31:47Z
format Article
id doaj.art-e89314c1ce5c4e1586726c503f8c3903
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1482-1826
language English
last_indexed 2025-03-21T01:00:51Z
publishDate 2021-08-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
series Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences
spelling doaj.art-e89314c1ce5c4e1586726c503f8c39032024-08-03T04:27:25ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences1482-18262021-08-012410.18433/jpps31872Professor Endrenyi’s Legacy: An Evaluation of the Regulatory Requirement “Fixed Effects, Rather Than Random Effects, Should Be Used for All Terms”Anders Fuglsang0Fuglsang Pharma, Vejle Ø, DenmarkPurpose: In the latest revision of the guideline for evaluation of bioequivalence (BE), European regulators introduced the requirement for using subjects as fixed factors in the underlying statistical models, even in replicate and semi-replicate studies. The implication was that estimates of within-subject variability were derived with a linear model rather than with a mixed model based on restricted maximum likelihood (REML). While REML-based methods are generally thought to give rise to less biased estimates of variance components, there have been no studies that compared the quality of REML-based estimates and estimates derived via linear models. Methods: A publication by Endrenyi and Tothfalusi from 1999 described simulations in a fashion that is useful for testing the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) requirement.  This study defines 7 scenarios within which 10,000 individual 2-sequence, 2-treatment, 4-period trials are simulated and makes a comparison of the quality of estimates. Results: It is concluded that estimates based on REML are closer to the true values than estimates based on linear models, but significant differences are only shown in two of the seven scenarios tested.  REML-based estimators have less variability. Both types of estimates appear negatively biased and will therefore decrease the width of the acceptance range.https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/jpps/index.php/JPPS/article/view/31872
spellingShingle Anders Fuglsang
Professor Endrenyi’s Legacy: An Evaluation of the Regulatory Requirement “Fixed Effects, Rather Than Random Effects, Should Be Used for All Terms”
Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences
title Professor Endrenyi’s Legacy: An Evaluation of the Regulatory Requirement “Fixed Effects, Rather Than Random Effects, Should Be Used for All Terms”
title_full Professor Endrenyi’s Legacy: An Evaluation of the Regulatory Requirement “Fixed Effects, Rather Than Random Effects, Should Be Used for All Terms”
title_fullStr Professor Endrenyi’s Legacy: An Evaluation of the Regulatory Requirement “Fixed Effects, Rather Than Random Effects, Should Be Used for All Terms”
title_full_unstemmed Professor Endrenyi’s Legacy: An Evaluation of the Regulatory Requirement “Fixed Effects, Rather Than Random Effects, Should Be Used for All Terms”
title_short Professor Endrenyi’s Legacy: An Evaluation of the Regulatory Requirement “Fixed Effects, Rather Than Random Effects, Should Be Used for All Terms”
title_sort professor endrenyi s legacy an evaluation of the regulatory requirement fixed effects rather than random effects should be used for all terms
url https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/jpps/index.php/JPPS/article/view/31872
work_keys_str_mv AT andersfuglsang professorendrenyislegacyanevaluationoftheregulatoryrequirementfixedeffectsratherthanrandomeffectsshouldbeusedforallterms