Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Medicine

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 379–388 | Cite as

Design and Analysis of Biosimilar Switching Studies

  • Shein-Chung ChowEmail author
  • Sang Joon Lee
Leading Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Under the US Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI), the development of biosimilar (test) products provides affordable alternatives to innovative biological (reference) products for the general patient population. However, in practice, as the number of biosimilar products available on the market increases, whether these biosimilars can be used interchangeably is a concern. Thus, using switching studies to evaluate the risk of reduced efficacy and increased safety concerns with and without switch(es) in the development of biosimilar products is of interest. For this purpose, the US FDA, in its recent draft guidance on interchangeability, suggested using a 2 × 2 crossover design (RT, RR) to evaluate a single switch and (RTR, RRR) and (RTRT, RRRR) to evaluate multiple switches. In this article, we examine the statistical properties, analyses, and sample size requirements of these switching study designs. We also investigate the relative efficiencies of these switching designs compared with the complete  n-of-1 trial design.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No funding was received for the preparation of this research article.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Shein-Chung Chow and Dr. Sang Joon Lee have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Supplementary material

40290_2019_296_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (185 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 184 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Endrenyi L, Declerck P, Chow SC. Biosimilar Product Development. London: Taylor & Francis; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    BPCI. Biologic price, competition, and innovation act. Washington DC: United States Congress; 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    FDA. Guidance on Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product. Silver Spring: The United States Food and Drug Administration; 2015.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    FDA (2017, 2019). Guidance for industry—considerations in demonstrating interchangeability with a reference product. The United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chow S, Song F, Cui C. On hybrid parallel–crossover designs for assessing drug interchangeability of biosimilar products. J Biopharm Stat. 2017;27:265–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    PHS (1944). Public Health Services Act. Passed by United States Congress and enacted July, 1944. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    FDA. Guidance on statistical approaches for evaluation of bioequivalence. Rockville: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    FDA. Guidance on bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administrated drug products—general considerations. Rockville: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2003.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chow SC, Liu JP (2008) Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. 3rd ed, vol 25. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 237–241.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chow SC. Biosimilars: design and analysis of follow-on biologics. 1st ed. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haidar SH, Davit B, Chen ML, Conner D, Lee L, Li QH, Lionberger R, Makhlouf F, Patel D, Schuirmann DJ, Yu LX. Bioequivalence approaches for highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res. 2008;25(1):237–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chow SC, Xu H, Endrenyi L, Song FY. A new scaled criterion for drug interchangeability. Chin J Pharm Anal. 2015;35(5):844–8.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lillie EO, Patay B, Diamant J, Issell B, Topol E, Schork NJ. The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Personal Med. 2011;8(2):161–73.  https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.11.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davidson KW, Cheung YK, McGinn T, Wang YC (2018) Expanding the role of n-of-1 trials in the precision medicine era: action priorities and practical consideration. Commentary. National Academy of Medicine, Washington DC. http://doi.org/10.31478/201812d.
  15. 15.
    Chen KW, Chow SC, Li G. A note on sample size determination for bioequivalence studies with higher-order crossover designs. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1997;25:753–65.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025738019069.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biostatistics and BioinformaticsDuke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Celltrion, IncIncheonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations