Predictive Potential of Cmax Bioequivalence in Pilot Bioavailability/Bioequivalence Studies, through the Alternative ƒ2 Similarity Factor Method

Abstract

Pilot bioavailability/bioequivalence (BA/BE) studies are downsized trials that can be conducted prior to the definitive pivotal trial. In these trials, 12 to 18 subjects are usually enrolled, although, in principle, a sample size is not formally calculated. In a previous work, authors recommended the use of an alternative approach to the average bioequivalence methodology to evaluate pilot studies’ data, using the geometric mean (Gmean) ƒ2 factor with a cut off of 35, which has shown to be an appropriate method to assess the potential bioequivalence for the maximum observed concentration (Cmax) metric under the assumptions of a true Test-to-Reference Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) of 100% and an inter-occasion variability (IOV) in the range of 10% to 45%. In this work, the authors evaluated the proposed ƒ2 factor in comparison with the standard average bioequivalence in more extreme scenarios, using a true GMR of 90% or 111% for truly bioequivalent formulations, and 80% or 125% for truly bioinequivalent formulations, in order to better derive conclusions on the potential of this analysis method. Several scenarios of pilot BA/BE crossover studies were simulated through population pharmacokinetic modelling, accounting for different IOV levels. A redefined decision tree is proposed, suggesting a fixed sample size of 20 subjects for pilot studies in the case of intra-subject coefficient of variation (ISCV%) > 20% or unknown variability, and suggesting the assessment of study results through the average bioequivalence analysis, and additionally through Gmean ƒ2 factor method in the case of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for GMR is outside the regulatory acceptance bioequivalence interval of [80.00–125.00]%. Using this alternative approach, the certainty levels to proceed with pivotal studies, depending on Gmean ƒ2 values and variability scenarios tested (20–60% IOV), were assessed, which is expected to be helpful in terms of the decision to proceed with pivotal bioequivalence studies.