Individual bioequivalence testing under 2×3 designs
Abstract
In recent years, as more generic drug products become available, it is a concern not only whether generic drug products that have been approved based on the regulation of average bioequivalence will have the same quality, safety and efficacy as that of the brand‐name drug product, but also whether the approved generic drug products can be used interchangeably. In its recent draft guidance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends that individual bioequivalence (IBE) be assessed using the method proposed by Hyslop, Hsuan, and Holder to address drug switchability. The FDA suggests that a 2×4 cross‐over design be considered for assessment of IBE, while a 2×3 cross‐over design may be used as an alternative design to reduce the length and cost of the study. Little or no information regarding the statistical procedures under 2×3 cross‐over designs is discussed in the guidance. In this paper, a detailed statistical procedure for assessment of IBE under 2×3 cross‐over designs is derived. The main purpose of this paper, however, is to derive an IBE test under an alternative 2×3 design and show that the resulting IBE test is better than that under a 2×3 cross‐over design and is comparable to or even better than that under a 2×4 cross‐over design. Our conclusions are supported by theoretical considerations and empirical results. Furthermore, a method of determining the sample sizes required for IBE tests to reach a given level of power is proposed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Citing Literature
Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 30
- Helmut Schütz, Detlew Labes, Michael Tomashevskiy, Mario González-de la Parra, Anastasia Shitova, Anders Fuglsang, Reference Datasets for Studies in a Replicate Design Intended for Average Bioequivalence with Expanding Limits, The AAPS Journal, 10.1208/s12248-020-0427-6, 22, 2, (2020).
- Valeria Belleudi, Francesco Trotta, Simona Vecchi, Laura Amato, Antonio Addis, Marina Davoli, Studies on drug switchability showed heterogeneity in methodological approaches: a scoping review, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.003, 101, (5-16), (2018).
- Felicia A. Browne, Wendee M. Wechsberg, Paul N. Kizakevich, William A. Zule, Courtney P. Bonner, Ashton N. Madison, Brittni N. Howard, Leslie B. Turner, mHealth versus face-to-face: study protocol for a randomized trial to test a gender-focused intervention for young African American women at risk for HIV in North Carolina, BMC Public Health, 10.1186/s12889-018-5796-8, 18, 1, (2018).
- Shein-Chung Chow, Laszlo Endrenyi, Chapter 11 Design and Analysis of Studies for Assessing Interchangeability, Biosimilar Drug Product Development, 10.1201/9781315119878-12, (297-322), (2017).
- Detlew Labes, Helmut Schütz, Inflation of Type I Error in the Evaluation of Scaled Average Bioequivalence, and a Method for its Control, Pharmaceutical Research, 10.1007/s11095-016-2006-1, 33, 11, (2805-2814), (2016).
- Freddy Faccin, Paul Tebbey, Emily Alexander, Xin Wang, Lu Cui, Teotonio Albuquerque, The design of clinical trials to support the switching and alternation of biosimilars, Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, 10.1080/14712598.2017.1238454, 16, 12, (1445-1453), (2016).
- Shein-Chung Chow, Fuyu Song, Meng Chen, Some thoughts on drug interchangeability, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2015.1092027, 26, 1, (178-186), (2015).
- Sarfaraz Niazi, FDA regulatory guidance, Biosimilars and Interchangeable Biologics, 10.1201/b19161, (157-226), (2015).
- Sarfaraz Niazi, European regulatory guidance, Biosimilars and Interchangeable Biologics, 10.1201/b19161, (81-134), (2015).
- Shein‐Chung Chow, Bioavailability and bioequivalence in drug development, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 10.1002/wics.1310, 6, 4, (304-312), (2014).
- Sarfaraz Niazi, Bibliography, Handbook of Bioequivalence Testing, Second Edition, 10.1201/b17582-28, (873-936), (2014).
- Chieh Chiang, Chin-Fu Hsiao, Jen-Pei Liu, Sample Size Determination for Individual Bioequivalence Inference, PLoS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0109746, 9, 10, (e109746), (2014).
- Shein‐Chung Chow, Jen‐Pei Liu, References, Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials, undefined, (799-844), (2013).
- Gary Gadbury, Subject-Treatment Interaction, Encyclopedia of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, Third Edition, 10.1201/b14674, (1316-1321), (2012).
- Seung-Chun Lee, Bayesian Estimation in Bioequivalence Study, Korean Journal of Applied Statistics, 10.5351/KJAS.2011.24.6.1095, 24, 6, (1095-1102), (2011).
- Gyu-Jin Jeong, Sang-Gue Park, On Evaluation of Bioequivalence for Highly Variable Drugs, Korean Journal of Applied Statistics, 10.5351/KJAS.2011.24.6.1055, 24, 6, (1055-1076), (2011).
- Chong-Sun Hong, Jae-Seon Joo, Jin-Soo Choi, Optimal Thresholds from Mixture Distributions, Korean Journal of Applied Statistics, 10.5351/KJAS.2010.23.1.013, 23, 1, (13-28), (2010).
- Shein-Chung Chow, Jen-pei Liu, Shein-Chung Chow, Individual Bioequivalence, Encyclopedia of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.3109/9781439822463, (629-634), (2010).
- Gyu-Jin Jung, Nam-Kyoo Lim, Sang-Gue Park, Individual Bioequivalence Tests under 3 X 2 Design, Korean Journal of Applied Statistics, 10.5351/KJAS.2010.23.1.139, 23, 1, (139-150), (2010).
- Sang-Youn Rho, Technical Improvements of the Projection of Household Health Care Expenditure, Korean Journal of Applied Statistics, 10.5351/KJAS.2010.23.1.001, 23, 1, (1-11), (2010).
- Gary L. Gadbury, Shein-Chung Chow, Subject-Treatment Interaction, Encyclopedia of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.3109/9781439822463, (1316-1321), (2010).
- Laszlo Tothfalusi, Laszlo Endrenyi, Alfredo Garcia Arieta, Evaluation of Bioequivalence for Highly Variable Drugs with Scaled Average Bioequivalence, Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 10.2165/11318040-000000000-00000, 48, 11, (725-743), (2009).
- G. Y. Zou, A. Donner, Construction of confidence limits about effect measures: A general approach, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.3095, 27, 10, (1693-1702), (2007).
- Shein‐Chung Chow, Bioequivalence Studies in Drug Development, Methods and Applications by D. HAUSCHKE, V. STEINIJANS, and I. PIGEOT, Biometrics, 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00856_4.x, 63, 3, (969-970), (2007).
- A Comparative Study of Statistical Methods for Population Bioequivalence in 2 X 2 Crossover Design, Korean Journal of Applied Statistics, 10.5351/KJAS.2005.18.1.159, 18, 1, (159-171), (2005).
- The Analysis of Academic Achievements for Different Selection Criteria via Linear Mixed Models, Korean Journal of Applied Statistics, 10.5351/KJAS.2005.18.1.015, 18, 1, (15-26), (2005).
- Bayesian Clustering of Prostate Cancer Patients by Using a Latent Class Poisson Model, Korean Journal of Applied Statistics, 10.5351/KJAS.2005.18.1.001, 18, 1, (1-13), (2005).
- Hansheng Wang, Shein-Chung Chow, Murphy Chen, A Bayesian Approach on Sample Size Calculation for Comparing Means, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1081/BIP-200067789, 15, 5, (799-807), (2005).
- Scott D. Patterson, Byron Jones, Simulation assessments of statistical aspects of bioequivalence in the pharmaceutical industry, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.88, 3, 1, (13-23), (2004).
- Francis C. Hsuan, Russell Reeve, Assessing individual bioequivalence with high‐order cross‐over designs: a unified procedure, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.1382, 22, 18, (2847-2860), (2003).




