Sample Sizes for Designing Bioequivalence Studies for Highly Variable Drugs

Purpose. To provide tables of sample sizes which are required, by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies involving highly variable drugs. To elucidate the complicated features of the relationship between sam...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Laszlo Endrenyi, Laszlo Tothfalusi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences 2011-12-01
Series:Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences
Online Access:https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/jpps/index.php/JPPS/article/view/11612
id doaj-6538d4fc8c144dd4bb68c8dca65a6539
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6538d4fc8c144dd4bb68c8dca65a65392020-11-25T03:44:23ZengCanadian Society for Pharmaceutical SciencesJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences1482-18262011-12-0115110.18433/J3Z88FSample Sizes for Designing Bioequivalence Studies for Highly Variable DrugsLaszlo Endrenyi0Laszlo Tothfalusi1University of Toronto, Toronto, ON CanadaSemmelweis UniversityPurpose. To provide tables of sample sizes which are required, by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies involving highly variable drugs. To elucidate the complicated features of the relationship between sample size and within-subject variation. Methods. 3- and 4-period studies were simulated with various sample sizes. They were evaluated, at various variations and various true ratios of the two geometric means (GMR), by the approaches of scaled average BE and by average BE with expanding limits. The sample sizes required for yielding 80% and 90% statistical powers were determined. Results. Because of the complicated regulatory expectations, the features of the required sample sizes are also complicated. When the true GMR = 1.0 then, without additional constraints, the sample size is independent of the intrasubject variation. When the true GMR is increased or decreased from 1.0 then the required sample sizes rise at above but close to 30% variation. An additional regulatory constraint on the point estimate of GMR and a cap on the use of expanding limits further increase the required sample size at high variations. Fewer subjects are required by the FDA than by the EMA procedures. Conclusions. The methods proposed by EMA and FDA lower the required sample sizes in comparison with unscaled average BE. However, each additional regulatory requirement (applying the mixed procedure, imposing a constraint on the point estimate of GMR, and using a cap on the application of expanding limits) raises the required number of subjects. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see “For Readers”) may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue’s contents page.https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/jpps/index.php/JPPS/article/view/11612
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Laszlo Endrenyi
Laszlo Tothfalusi
spellingShingle Laszlo Endrenyi
Laszlo Tothfalusi
Sample Sizes for Designing Bioequivalence Studies for Highly Variable Drugs
Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences
author_facet Laszlo Endrenyi
Laszlo Tothfalusi
author_sort Laszlo Endrenyi
title Sample Sizes for Designing Bioequivalence Studies for Highly Variable Drugs
title_short Sample Sizes for Designing Bioequivalence Studies for Highly Variable Drugs
title_full Sample Sizes for Designing Bioequivalence Studies for Highly Variable Drugs
title_fullStr Sample Sizes for Designing Bioequivalence Studies for Highly Variable Drugs
title_full_unstemmed Sample Sizes for Designing Bioequivalence Studies for Highly Variable Drugs
title_sort sample sizes for designing bioequivalence studies for highly variable drugs
publisher Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences
series Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences
issn 1482-1826
publishDate 2011-12-01
description Purpose. To provide tables of sample sizes which are required, by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies involving highly variable drugs. To elucidate the complicated features of the relationship between sample size and within-subject variation. Methods. 3- and 4-period studies were simulated with various sample sizes. They were evaluated, at various variations and various true ratios of the two geometric means (GMR), by the approaches of scaled average BE and by average BE with expanding limits. The sample sizes required for yielding 80% and 90% statistical powers were determined. Results. Because of the complicated regulatory expectations, the features of the required sample sizes are also complicated. When the true GMR = 1.0 then, without additional constraints, the sample size is independent of the intrasubject variation. When the true GMR is increased or decreased from 1.0 then the required sample sizes rise at above but close to 30% variation. An additional regulatory constraint on the point estimate of GMR and a cap on the use of expanding limits further increase the required sample size at high variations. Fewer subjects are required by the FDA than by the EMA procedures. Conclusions. The methods proposed by EMA and FDA lower the required sample sizes in comparison with unscaled average BE. However, each additional regulatory requirement (applying the mixed procedure, imposing a constraint on the point estimate of GMR, and using a cap on the application of expanding limits) raises the required number of subjects. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see “For Readers”) may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue’s contents page.
url https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/jpps/index.php/JPPS/article/view/11612
work_keys_str_mv AT laszloendrenyi samplesizesfordesigningbioequivalencestudiesforhighlyvariabledrugs
AT laszlotothfalusi samplesizesfordesigningbioequivalencestudiesforhighlyvariabledrugs
_version_ 1724515382302081024