Abstract:In most clinical trials comparing a test drug and a control (e.g., a placebo control or an active control), treatment effect is usually established by comparing mean response change from baseline of some primary study endpoints assuming that their corresponding variabilities are comparable. In practice, however, variabilities associated with the test drug and the control could be very different. When the variability of the test drug is much larger than that of the reference drug, safety of the test drug could be a concern. Thus, in addition to comparing mean responses between treatments, it is also of interest to compare the variabilities associated with the responses between treatments. In practice, the variabilities associated with the response are usually classified into two categories, namely, the intrasubject (or within-subject) variability and the intersubject (or between-subjects) variability. Intrasubject variability refers to the variability observed from repeated measurements from the same subject under the same experimental condition. On the other hand, intersubject variability is the variability due to the heterogeneity among subjects. The total variability is simply the sum of the intraand intersubject variabilities. In practice, it is of interest to test for equality, noninferiority/superiority, and similarity (or equivalence) between treatments in terms of the intrasubject, intersubject, and/or total variabilities. Under a replicated parallel design, the usual F-test can be performed to compare intrasubject variabilities. Under a replicated crossover design, Chinchilli and Esinhart proposed the F-test using an orthogonal transformation to test for difference in intrasubject variability between treatments. Under replicated parallel designs, however, intersubject and total variabilities between two treatments cannot be compared by the usual F-test because the distribution of estimators does not follow a chi-square distribution. In these cases, the modified large sample (MLS) method is suggested (see, e.g., Refs. [2–5]). The MLS method is shown to be superior to the other approximation methods in practice. Under a replicated crossover design, the MLS method is not appropriate to compare intersubject and total variabilities because estimators of variance components are not independent. Lee et al. extend the MLS method when estimators of variance components are dependent. In addition, Lee et al. study a test for comparing intersubject and total variabilities under replicated crossover designs based on the extension of the MLS method. In practice, instead of comparing intrasubject variabilities, it may be of interest to compare intrasubject coefficient of variation (CV). In recent years, the use of intrasubject CV has become popular when assessing the reproducibility, similarity, and stability of a drug product when the drug product is repeatedly administered over a period of time. In this entry, we will discuss two statistical methods by Chow and Tse and Quan and Shih.

Internal standard variability: root cause investigation, parallelism for evaluating trackability and practical considerations

Assessment of matrix effect in quantitative LC-MS bioanalysis

Interlaboratory evaluation of LC–MS-based biomarker assays

Some unusual minor volatile components of tomato.

A Strategy for A Post-Method-Validation Use of Incurred Biological Samples for Establishing the Acceptability of A Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass-Spectrometric Method for Quantitation of Drugs in Biological Samples

High Tolerance to Instrument Drifts by Differential Chemical Isotope Labeling LC-MS: A Case Study of the Effect of LC Leak in Long-Term Sample Runs on Quantitative Metabolome Analysis.

A new antibacterial compound from Luo Han Kuo fruit extract (Siraitia grosvenori)

A Tool for Automatic Correction of Endogenous Concentrations: Application to BHB Analysis by LC-MS-MS and GC-MS

[A simultaneous operation for esophageal and cholangiocellular carcinomas--a case of report].

A-101 Is That Unexpected? Education on Handling Real World Complications with Tightly Controlled Analytes During Method Evaluation

Standardization of complex biologically derived spectrochemical datasets

B-109 Six Sigma Analysis for Enhancing Biochemistry Internal Quality Control in a Private Laboratory in India

Particulate matter in water: an overlooked source of preanalytical error producing erroneous chemistry test results

Historical review of sample preparation for chromatographic bioanalysis: pros and cons

Comparing Variabilities in Clinical Research

The role of analytical performance specifications in international guidelines and standards dealing with metrological traceability in laboratory medicine

Optimizing Available Tools for Achieving Result Standardization: Value Added by Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM)

Effect of lidocaine gel anesthesia on endophthalmitis rates following intravitreal injection.

Evaluation of internal standardization for the determination of semivolatile analytes in difficult matrices by simultaneous multielement atomic absorption spectrometry

Bioanalytical Quality Assurance: a Tesla with a trafficator?

Liquid Chromatography High Resolution Mass Spectrometry in Forensic Toxicology: What Are the Specifics of Method Development, Validation and Quality Assurance for Comprehensive Screening Approaches?