Transl Clin Pharmacol.  2017 Dec;25(4):179-182. 10.12793/tcp.2017.25.4.179.

A post hoc analysis of intra-subject coefficients of variation in pharmacokinetic measures to calculate optimal sample sizes for bioequivalence studies

• Chung I
• Oh J
• Lee S
• Jang IJ
• Lee Y
• Chung JY

• KMID: 2406999
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.12793/tcp.2017.25.4.179

Abstract

Because bioequivalence studies are performed using a crossover design, information on the intra-subject coefficient of variation (intra-CV) for pharmacokinetic measures is needed when determining the sample size. However, calculated intra-CVs based on bioequivalence results of identical generic drugs produce different estimates. In this study, we collected bioequivalence results using public resources from the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) and calculated the intra-CVs of various generics. For the generics with multiple bioequivalence results, pooled intra-CVs were calculated. The estimated intra-CVs of 142 bioequivalence studies were 14.7±8.2% for AUC and 21.7±8.8% for C(max). Intra-CVs of C(max) were larger than those of area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) in 129 studies (90.8%). For the 26 generics with multiple bioequivalence results, the coefficients of variation of intra-CVs between identical generics (mean±sd (min ~ max)) were 38.0±24.4% (1.9 ~ 105.3%) for AUC and 27.9±18.2 % (4.0 ~ 70.1%) for C(max). These results suggest that substantial variation exists among the bioequivalence results of identical generics. In this study, we presented the intra-CVs of various generics with their pooled intra-CVs. The estimated intra-CVs calculated in this study will provide useful information for planning future bioequivalence studies.

Keyword

bioequivalence; coefficient of variation; sample size; power; generic drugs

MeSH Terms

Area Under Curve
Cross-Over Studies
Drugs, Generic
Sample Size*
Therapeutic Equivalency*
Drugs, Generic

Reference

1. Chow SC. Bioavailability and bioequivalence in drug development. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat. 2014; 6:304–312. PMID: 25215170.

2. Sanchez MP, Ocana J, Carrasco JL. The effect of variability and carryover on average bioequivalence assessment: a simulation study. Pharm Stat. 2011; 10:135–142. PMID: 22432131.

3. Shen M, Russek-Cohen E, Slud EV. Letter to the editor by the authors of Exact Calculation of Power and Sample Size in Bioequivalence Studies Using Two One-sided Tests. Pharm Stat. 2015; 14:272. DOI: 10.1002/pst.1677. PMID: 25807931.

4. Ahmed S. A pooling methodology for coefficient of variation. Sankhya Indian J Stat Ser B. 1995; 57:57–75.

5. Phillips KF. Power of the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1990; 18:137–144. PMID: 2348380.

6. Chow SC, Wang H. On sample size calculation in bioequivalence trials. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2001; 28:155–169. PMID: 11381568.

7. Worley JW, Morrell JA, Duewer DL, Peterfreund LA. Alternate indexes of variation for the analysis of experimental data. Anal Chem. 1984; 56:462–466.

8. Labes D. Implementation details of the power calculations via simulations for scaled ABE in-package PowerTOST. Accessed 20 October 2017. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/PowerTOST/PowerTOST.pdf.

9. Chen ML, Shah V, Patnaik R, Adams W, Hussain A, Conner D, et al. Bioavailability and bioequivalence: an FDA regulatory overview. Pharm Res. 2001; 18:1645–1650. PMID: 11785681.

10. Yuen KH, Wong JW, Yap SP, Billa N. Estimated coefficient of variation values for sample size planning in bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001; 39:37–40. PMID: 11204936.

11. MFDS Information on Drug Safety. Accessed 25 October 2017. http://www.mfds.go.kr/index.do?mid=1176&cd=191.

12. Diletti E, Hauschke D, Steinijans VW. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1991; 29:1–8. PMID: 2004861.

13. Diletti E, Hauschke D, Steinijans VW. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1992; 30(Suppl 1):S51–S58. PMID: 1601532.

14. Labes D. Package ‘PowerTOST’. Accessed 20 October 2017. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/PowerTOST/PowerTOST.pdf.

15. Midha KK, McKay G. Bioequivalence; its history, practice, and future. AAPS J. 2009; 11:664–670. DOI: 10.1208/s12248-009-9142-z. PMID: 19806461.

16. Ramirez E, Laosa O, Guerra P, Duque B, Mosquera B, Borobia AM, et al. Acceptability and characteristics of 124 human bioequivalence studies with active substances classified according to the Biopharmaceutic Classification System. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010; 70:694–702. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03757.x. PMID: 21039763.

17. Sato M, Narukawa M. c. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015; 53:955–962. DOI: 10.5414/CP202399. PMID: 26365336.

18. Harahap Y, Prasaja B, Azmi F, Lusthom W, Sinandang T, Felicia V, et al. Bioequivalence study of two rosuvastatin tablet formulations in healthy Indonesian subjects. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016; 54:212–216. DOI: 10.5414/CP202345. PMID: 26073355.

19. Ju SY, Chen YC, Tzeng HK, Chen SW, Guo GT, Juan CH, et al. Bioequivalence Evaluation of Two Formulations of Celecoxib 200 mg Capsules in Healthy volunteers by using a validated LC/MS/MS method. Int J Bioanal Methods Bioequival Stud. 2015; 2:34–40.

20. Techatanawat I, Bhuket PRN, Teerawonganan P, Yoosakul E, Khaowroongrueng V, Paisarnsinsool W, et al. Bioequivalence study of duloxetine hydrochloride 60 mg ec capsules in the fasting and fed states in healthy Thai male volunteers. J Health Res. 2015; 29:165–169.

21. Davit BM, Chen ML, Conner DP, Haidar SH, Kim S, Lee CH, et al. Implementation of a reference-scaled average bioequivalence approach for highly variablegeneric drug products by the US Food and Drug Administration. AAPS J. 2012; 14:915–924. PMID: 22972221.