Model-based approach for two-stage group sequential or adaptive designs in bioequivalence studies using parallel and crossover designs

Abstract

In pharmacokinetic (PK) bioequivalence (BE) analysis, the recommended approach is the two one-sided tests (TOSTs) on non-compartmental analysis (NCA) estimates of area under the plasma drug concentration versus time curve and $C_{m a x}$ (NCA-TOST). Sample size estimation for a BE study requires assumptions on between/within subject variability (B/WSV). When little prior information is available, interim analysis using two-stage group sequential (GS) or adaptive designs (ADs) may be beneficial. GS fixes the second stage size, while AD requires sample re-estimation based on first-stage results. Recent research has proposed model-based (MB) TOST, using nonlinear mixed effects models, as an alternative to NCA-TOST. This work extends GS and AD approaches to MB-TOST. We evaluated these approaches on simulated parallel and two-way crossover designs for a one-compartment PK model, considering three variability levels for initial sample size calculation. We compared final sample size, type I error, and power estimates from one-stage, GS, and AD designs using NCA-TOST and MB-TOST. Results showed both NCA-TOST and MB-TOST reasonably controlled type I error while maintaining adequate power in two-stage GS and AD approaches, based on our limited computation power. Two-stage designs reduced sample size compared to traditional designs, especially for highly variable drugs, with many trials stopping at Stage 1 in AD designs. Our findings suggest MB-TOST may serve as a viable alternative to NCA-TOST for BE assessment in two-stage designs, especially when B/WSV impacts BE results.

Keywords

Bioequivalence nonlinear mixed effects model sample size re-estimation two-one sided test two-stage design type I error control

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

FDA. Bioequivalence studies with pharmacokinetic endpoints for drugs submitted under an ANDA guidance for industry, 2021. OnlineDoc: https://www.fda.gov/media/87219/download (accessed 10 May 2022).

FDA. Statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. 2022. OnlineDoc: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/statistical-approaches-establishing-bioequivalence-0 (accessed 10 May 2022).

FDA. Bioequivalence studies with pharmacokinetic endpoints for drugs submitted under an abbreviated new drug application. 2021. OnlineDoc: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/bioequivalence-studies-pharmacokinetic-endpoints-drugs-submitted-under-abbreviated-new-drug (accessed 10 May 2022).

Patterson

Jones

. Bioequivalence and statistics in clinical pharmacology. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017.

EMA. Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence., 2010. OnlineDoc: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-investigation-bioequivalence-rev1_en.pdf (accessed 21 June 2021).

Dubois

Lavielle

Gsteiger

, et al. Model-based analyses of bioequivalence crossover trials using the stochastic approximation expectation maximisation algorithm. Stat Med 2011; 30: 2582–2600.

Loingeville

Bertrand

Nguyen

, et al. New model–based bioequivalence statistical approaches for pharmacokinetic studies with sparse sampling. AAPS J 2020; 22: 1–8.

FDA. Population pharmacokinetics - Guidance for industry, 2022. OnlineDoc : https://www.fda.gov/media/128793/download.

Potvin

DiLiberti

Hauck

, et al. Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs. Pharmaceut Stat: J Appl Stat Pharmaceut Industry 2008; 7: 245–262.

10.

Kieser

Rauch

. Two-stage designs for cross-over bioequivalence trials. Stat Med 2015; 34: 2403–2416.

11.

Pocock

. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika 1977; 64: 191–199.

12.

Maurer

Jones

Chen

. Controlling the type I error rate in two-stage sequential adaptive designs when testing for average bioequivalence. Stat Med 2018; 37: 1587–1607.

13.

Lehmacher

Wassmer

. Adaptive sample size calculations in group sequential trials. Biometrics 1999; 55: 1286–1290.

14.

Lestini

Dumont

Mentré

. Influence of the size of cohorts in adaptive design for nonlinear mixed effects models: an evaluation by simulation for a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model for a biomarker in oncology. Pharm Res 2015; 32: 3159–3169.

15.

Schuirmann

. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1987; 15: 657–680.

16.

Hauschke

Steinijans

Pigeot

. Bioequivalence studies in drug development: Methods and applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.

17.

Atkinson

. Optimum experimental design. In: International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. Vol. 34. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2011, pp.1037–1039.

18.

Oehlert

. A note on the delta method. Am Stat 1992; 46: 27–29.

19.

Hauschke

Steinijans

Diletti

, et al. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment using a multiplicative model. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1992; 20: 557–561.

20.

Mentre

Mallet

Baccar

. Optimal design in random-effects regression models. Biometrika 1997; 84: 429–442.

21.

Dumont

Lestini

Le Nagard

, et al. PFIM 4.0, an extended R program for design evaluation and optimization in nonlinear mixed-effect models. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2018; 156: 217–229.

22.

Möllenhoff

Loingeville

Bertrand

, et al. Efficient model-based bioequivalence testing. Biostatistics 2022; 23: 314–327.

23.

Tardivon

Loingeville

Donnelly

, et al. Evaluation of model-based bioequivalence approach for single sample pharmacokinetic studies. CPT: Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol 2023; 12: 904–915.

24.

Kuhn

Lavielle

. Maximum likelihood estimation in nonlinear mixed effects models. Comput Stat Data Anal 2005; 49: 1020–1038.

25.

Comets

Lavenu

Lavielle

. Parameter estimation in nonlinear mixed effect models using saemix, an R implementation of the SAEM algorithm. J Stat Softw 2017; 80: 1–41.

26.

Lixoft

team

. Monolix version 2018R2. Tech. rep., Antony, France: Lixoft SAS, 2018.

27.

Grayling

Zhang

, et al. A Bayesian approach to pilot-pivotal trials for bioequivalence assessment. BMC Med Res Methodol 2023; 23: 301.

28.

Mathew

. Pilot–pivotal trials for average bioequivalence. J Stat Plan Inference 2008; 138: 2106–2116.

29.

Jayachandran

. Advances in quantitative methods and modeling for complex generic drugs and opportunities to hybridize learnings between innovator and generic drug developers. CPT: Pharmacometr Syst Pharmacol 2023; 12: 549.

30.

Hernandez

Bott

Patel

, et al. Pricing of monoclonal antibody therapies: higher if used for cancer. Am J Manag Care 2018; 24: 109–112.

31.

Philipp

Tessier

Donnelly

, et al. Model-based bioequivalence approach for sparse pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies: Model selection or model averaging?. Stat Med 2024; 43: 3403–3416.

32.

Chen

Nyberg

Donnelly

, et al. Development and comparison of model-integrated evidence approaches for bioequivalence studies with pharmacokinetic end points. CPT: Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol 2024; 13: 1734–1747.

33.

Bjugård Nyberg

Chen

Donnelly

, et al. Evaluation of model-integrated evidence approaches for pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies using model averaging methods. CPT: Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol 2024; 13: 1748–1761.

34.

Guhl

Mercier

Hofmann

, et al. Impact of model misspecification on model-based tests in PK studies with parallel design: real case and simulation studies. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2022; 49: 557–577.

35.

FDA. An adaptive trial design for testing the bioequivalence of generics of highly variable drugs, 2024. OnlineDoc: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/ regulatory-science-action/adaptive-trial-design-testing-bioequivalence -generics-highly-variable-drugs (accessed 30 September 2024).

36.

Asendorf

Henderson

Schmidli

, et al. Modelling and sample size reestimation for longitudinal count data with incomplete follow up. Stat Methods Med Res 2019; 28: 117–133.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.19 MB