Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dissolution comparisons using a Multivariate Statistical Distance (MSD) test and a comparison of various approaches for calculating the measurements of dissolution profile comparison

  • Research Article
  • Published:
The AAPS Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The f 2 test is generally used for comparing dissolution profiles. In cases of high variability, the f 2 test is not applicable, and the Multivariate Statistical Distance (MSD) test is frequently proposed as an alternative by the FDA and EMA. The guidelines provide only general recommendations. MSD tests can be performed either on raw data with or without time as a variable or on parameters of models. In addition, data can be limited—as in the case of the f 2 test—to dissolutions of up to 85% or to all available data. In the context of the present paper, the recommended calculation included all raw dissolution data up to the first point greater than 85% as a variable—without the various times as parameters. The proposed MSD overcomes several drawbacks found in other methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sathe PM, Tsong Y, Shah VP. In-vitro dissolution profile comparison: statistics and analysis, model dependent approach. Pharm Res. 1996;13(12):1799–803.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shah VP, Tsong Y, Sathe P, Liu JP. In vitro dissolution profile comparison—statistics and analysis of the similarity factor, f2. Pharm Res. 1998;15(6):889–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry dissolution testing of immediate release solid oral dosage forms. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). August 1997; http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm070237.pdf Accessed 15 Feb 2016.

  4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: immediate release solid oral dosage forms. Scale-up and post-approval changes: chemistry, manufacturing and controls, in vitro dissolution testing, and in vivo bioequivalence documentation [SUPAC-IR]. November 1995; http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../Guidances/UCM070636.pdf Accessed 15 Feb 2016.

  5. European Medicines Agency. CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98 Rev. 1 Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). 2010; Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2010/01/WC500070039.pdf (2010) Accessed 15 Feb 2016.

  6. Adams E, Coomans D, Smeyers-Verbeke J, Massart DL. Application of linear mixed effects models to the evaluation of dissolution profiles. Int J Pharm. 2001;226:107–25. doi:10.1016/S0378-5173(01)00775-X.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Adams E, Coomans D, Smeyers-Verbeke J, Massart DL. Non-linear mixed effects models for the evaluation of dissolution profiles. Int J Pharm. 2002;240(1–2):37–53. doi:10.1016/S0378-5173(02)00127-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderson NH, Bauer M, Boussac N, Khan-Malek R, Munden P, Sardaro M. An evaluation of fit factors and dissolution efficiency for the comparison of in vitro dissolution profiles. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 1998;17(4–5):811–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Costa P, Sousa Lobo JM. Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2001;13(2):123–33. doi:10.1016/S0928-0987(01)00095-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dedík L, Durisová M. System-approach methods for modeling and testing similarity of in vitro dissolutions of drug dosage formulations. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2002;69(1):49–55. doi:10.1016/S0169-2607(01)00188-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gomez-Mantilla JD, Casabo VG, Schaefer UF, Lehr CM. Permutation test (PT) and tolerated difference test (TDT): two new, robust and powerful nonparametric tests for statistical comparison of dissolution profiles. Int J Pharm. 2013;441(1–2):458–67. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2012.11.008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gomez-Mantilla JD, Schaefer UF, Casabo VG, Lehr T, Lehr CM. Statistical comparison of dissolution profiles to predict the bioequivalence of extended release formulations. AAPS J. 2014;16(4):791–801. doi:10.1208/s12248-014-9615-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hogarty K, Ferron J, Hess M, Kromrey J A Macro for computing point estimates and confidence intervals for Mahalanobis distance, Paper 163–30, SUGI 30, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2005, http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi30/163-30.pdf, accessed July 20, 2016

  14. Ma MC, Wang BBC, Liu JP, Tsong Y. Assessment of similarity between dissolution profiles. J Biopharm Stat. 2000;10(2):229–49. doi:10.1081/BIP-100101024.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ma MC, Lin RP, Liu JP. Statistical evaluations of dissolution similarity. Stat Sin. 1999;9(4):1011–27.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Moore JW, Flanner HH. Mathematical comparison of dissolution profiles. Pharm Technol. 1996;20(6):64–74.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Novick S, Shen Y, Yang H, Peterson J, LeBlond D, Altan S. Dissolution curve comparisons through the F(2) parameter, a Bayesian extension of the f(2) statistic. J Biopharm Stat. 2015;25(2):351–71. doi:10.1080/10543406.2014.971175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. O’Hara T, Dunne A, Kinahan A, Cunningham S, Stark P, Devane J. Review of methodologies for the comparison of dissolution profile data. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1997;423:167–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Polli J, McLean A. Novel direct curve comparison metrics for bioequivalence. Pharm Res. 2001;18(6):734–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saranadasa H, Krishnamoorthy K. A multivariate test for similarity of two dissolution profiles. J Biopharm Stat. 2005;15(2):265–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tsong Y, Hammerstrom T, Sathe P, Shah V. Statistical assessment of mean differences between two dissolution data sets. Drug Inf J. 1996;30(4):1105–12.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Yuksel N, Kanik AE, Baykara T. Comparison of in vitro dissolution profiles by ANOVA-based, model-dependent and -independent methods. Int J Pharm. 2000;209(1–2):57–67. doi:10.1016/S0378-5173(00)00554-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mangas-Sanjuan V, Colon-Useche S, Gonzalez-Alvarez I, Bermejo M, Garcia-Arieta A. Assessment of the regulatory methods for the comparison of highly variable dissolution profiles. AAPS J. 2016 Nov;18(6):1550–61. doi:10.1208/s12248-016-9971-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wicklin R. What is Mahalanobis distance? http://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2012/02/15/what-is-mahalanobis-distance.html, accessed July 23rd, 2016

  25. Box G. A general distribution theory for a class of likelihood criteria. Biometrika. 1949;36:317–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Vinod P. Shah (Pharmaceutical Consultant, North Potomac, MD, USA) for his great discussions during the development of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UFR Pharmacie, Medis, Biopharmaceutical Department, Clermont Auvergne University, 28 Place H. Dunant, BP 38, 63001, Clermont-Ferrand, France

    J-M. Cardot

  2. ESIEE, Cités Descartes, BP 99, 93162, Noisy le Grand Cedex, France

    B. Roudier

  3. BEBAC, Neubaugasse 36, 11 1070, Vienna, Austria

    H. Schütz

Authors
  1. J-M. Cardot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Roudier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Schütz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J-M. Cardot.

Ethics declarations

Disclaimer

All R codes provided are non-validated and only given as example of algorithm that could be used.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(PDF 403 kb)

ESM 2

(HTML 737 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 651 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cardot, JM., Roudier, B. & Schütz, H. Dissolution comparisons using a Multivariate Statistical Distance (MSD) test and a comparison of various approaches for calculating the measurements of dissolution profile comparison. AAPS J 19, 1091–1101 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-017-0063-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-017-0063-y

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation