Equivalence testing for similarity in bioassays using bioequivalence criteria on the relative bioactivity

Similarity in bioassays means that the test preparation behaves as a dilution of the standard preparation with respect to their biological effect. Thus, similarity must be investigated to confirm this biological property. Historically, this was typically conducted with traditional hypothesis testing, but this has received substantial criticism. Failing to reject similarity does not imply that the 2 preparations are similar. Also, rejecting similarity when bioassay variability is small might simply demonstrate a nonrelevant deviation in similarity. To remedy these concerns, equivalence testing has been proposed as an alternative to traditional hypothesis testing, and it has found its way in the official guidelines. However, similarity has been discussed mainly in terms of the parameters in the dose-response curves of the standard and test preparations, but the consequences of nonsimilarity on the relative bioactivity have never been investigated. This article provides a general equivalence approach to evaluate similarity that is directly related to bioequivalence on the relative bioactivity of the standard and test preparations. Bioequivalence on the relative bioactivity can only be guaranteed for positive (only nonblanks) and finite dose intervals. The approach is demonstrated on 4 case studies in which we also show how to calculate a sample size and how to investigate the power of equivalence on similarity

Co-segregation of thrombophilic disorders in factor V Leiden carriers; the contributions of factor VIII, factor XI, thrombin activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor and lipoprotein(a) to the absolute risk of venous thromboembolism

Background and Objectives. The clinical expression of factor V Leiden varies widely within and between families and only a minority of carriers will ever develop venous thromboembolism. Co-segregation of thrombophilic disorders is a possible explanation, Our aim was to assess the contributions of high levels of factor VIII:C, factor XI:C, thrombin activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor (TAFI) and lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) to the risk of venous thromboembolism in factor V Leiden carriers. Design and Methods. Levels of the four proteins were measured, in addition to tests of deficiencies for antithrombin, protein C and protein S, and the prothrombin G20210A mutation, in 153 factor V Leiden carriers, derived from a family cohort study. The (adjusted) relative risk and absolute risk of venous thromboembolism for high levels of each protein were calculated. Results. Of carriers, 60% had one or more concomitant thrombophilic disorders. Crude odds ratios (95% Cl) of venous thromboembolism for high protein levels were: 3.2 (1.1-9.3) (factor VIII:C); 1.7 (0.6-4.9) (factor XI:C); 3.0 (1.1-8.2) (TAFI); and 1.9 (0.7-5.7) (Lp(a)). Adjusted for age, sex, other concomitant thrombophilic disorders and exogenous risk factors, the odds ratio for venous thromboembolism were 2.7 (0.8-8.7) for high factor VIII:C levels and 1.8 (0.6-5.3) for high TAFI levels. Annual incidences in subgroups of carriers were 0.35% (0.09-0.89), 0.44% (0.05-1.57) and 0.94% (0.35-2.05) for concomitance of high levels of factor VIII:C, TAR and both, respectively, as compared to 0.09% (0.00-0.48) in single factor V Leiden carriers and 1.11% (0.30-2.82) for other concomitant disorders. Interpretation and Conclusions. High levels of factor VIII:C and TAFI, in contrast with factor XI:C and Lp(a), are mild risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and substantially contribute to the risk of venous thromboembolism in factor V Leiden carriers. Our data support the hypothesis that the clinical expression of factor V Leiden depends on co-segregation of thrombophilic disorders. (C) 2002, Ferrata Storti Foundatio