A comparison of group sequential and fixed sample size designs for bioequivalence trials with highly variable drugs
- 94 Downloads
A drug is defined as highly variable if its intra-individual coefficient of variation (CV) is greater than or equal to 30%. In such a case, bioequivalence may be assessed by means of methods that take the (high) variability into account. The Scaled Average Bioequivalence (SABE) approach is such a procedure and represents the recommendations of FDA. The aim of this investigation is to compare the performance characteristics of classical group sequential designs (GSD) and fixed design settings for three-period crossover bioequivalence studies with highly variable drugs, where the SABE procedure is utilized.
Monte Carlo simulations were performed to assess type I error rate, power, and average sample size for GSDs with Pocock’s and O’Brien-Fleming’s stopping rules and various timings of the interim analysis and for fixed design settings.
Based on our investigated scenarios, the GSDs show comparable properties with regard to power and type I error rate as compared to the corresponding fixed designs. However, due to an advantage in average sample size, the most appealing design is Pocock’s approach with interim analysis after 50% information fraction.
Due to their favorable performance characteristics, two-stage GSDs are an appealing alternative to fixed sample designs when assessing bioequivalence in highly variable drugs.
KeywordsBioequivalence Highly variable drugs Group sequential designs Two-stage designs
The authors would like to thank the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that helped us to improve the manuscript.
S.I.E.K., B.L., F.F., and M.K. wrote the manuscript; S.I.E.K., B.L., F.F., and M.K. designed the research; S.I.E.K. performed the research; S.I.E.K., B.L., F.F., and M.K. analyzed the results.
- 1.European Medicines Agency (2010) Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. Available online at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2010/01/WC500070039.pdf(January 8, 2018)
- 2.U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2001) Guidance for industry: statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. Available online at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070244.pdf (January 8, 2018)
- 7.Jennison C, Turnbull BW (2000) Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- 12.Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L (2012) Sample sizes for designing bioequivalence studies for highly variable drugs. J Pharm Pharm Sci 15(1):72–84Google Scholar
- 14.U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2010) Draft guidance on progesterone. Available online at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/%20guidances/ucm209294.pdf (January 8, 2018)
- 15.Patterson S, Jones B (2006) Bioequivalence and statistics in clinical pharmacology. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- 23.Davit BM, Chen ML, Conner DP, Haidar SH, Kim S, Lee CH, Lionberger RA, Makhlouf FT, Nwakama PE, Patel DT, Schuirmann DJ, Yu LX (2012) Implementation of a reference-scaled average bioequivalence approach for highly variable generic drug products by the us food and drug administration. AAPS J 14(4):915–924. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-012-9406-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Hyslop T, Hsuan F, Holder DJ (2000) A small sample confidence interval approach to assess individual bioequivalence. Stat Med 19(20):2885–2897. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20001030)19:20(2885:AID-SIM553)3.0.CO;2-H CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Wassmer G (2001) Statistische Testverfahren für gruppensequentielle und adaptive Pläne in klinischen Studien. Theoretische Konzepte und deren Umsetzung mit SAS. Köln, Verlag Alexander MönchGoogle Scholar
- 30.Labes D, Schuetz H, Lang B (2015) PowerTOST: Power and sample size based on Two One-Sided t-Tests (TOST) for (Bio)equivalence studies. R package version 1.2–06Google Scholar
- 31.Addplan (2014) Adaptive Designs - Plans and Analyses. Version 6.1.1. ADDPLAN, Inc. An Aptiv Solutions CompanyGoogle Scholar
- 32.SAS® Version 9.2 or higher of the SAS System (2002) Copyright© 2002–2003. SAS Institute Inc. SAS and all other SAS Institute Inc. product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
- 33.BEBAC Schütz H (2015) Bioequivalence and bioavailability forum. Available online at http://forum.bebac.at/mix_entry.php?id=10202 (January 8, 2018)
- 34.Hettema W, Wynne C, Lang B, Altendorfer M, Czeloth N, Lohmann R, Schliephake D (2017) A randomized, single-blind, phase I trial (INVICTAN-1) assessing the bioequivalence and safety of BI 695502, a bevacizumab biosimilar candidate, in healthy subjects. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 26(8):889–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/13543784.2017.1347635 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar