Performance of Multiple-Batch Approaches to Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence Testing for Orally Inhaled Drug Products with Batch-to-Batch Variability

Batch-to-batch pharmacokinetic (PK) variability of orally inhaled drug products has been documented and can render single-batch PK bioequivalence (BE) studies unreliable; results from one batch may not be consistent with a repeated study using a different batch, yet the goal of PK BE is to deliver a product comparison that is interpretable beyond the specific batches used in the study. We characterized four multiple-batch PK BE approaches to improve outcome reliability without increasing the number of clinical study participants. Three approaches include multiple batches directly in the PK BE study with batch identity either excluded from the statistical model (“Superbatch”) or included as a fixed or random effect (“Fixed Batch Effect,” “Random Batch Effect”). A fourth approach uses a bio-predictive in vitro test to screen candidate batches, bringing the median batch of each product into the PK BE study (“Targeted Batch”). Three of these approaches (Fixed Batch Effect, Superbatch, Targeted Batch) continue the single-batch PK BE convention in which uncertainty in the Test/Reference ratio estimate due to batch sampling is omitted from the Test/Reference confidence interval. All three of these approaches provided higher power to correctly identify true bioequivalence than the standard single-batch approach with no increase in clinical burden. False equivalence (type I) error was inflated above the expected 5% level, but multiple batches controlled type I error better than a single batch. The Random Batch Effect approach restored 5% type I error, but had low power for small (e.g., <8) batch sample sizes using standard [0.8000, 1.2500] bioequivalence limits.

[1]  L. Benet,et al.  Batch Selection via In Vitro/In Vivo Correlation in Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence Testing , 2021, AAPS PharmSciTech.

[2]  Leslie Z Benet,et al.  Batch‐to‐Batch and Within‐Subject Variability: What Do We Know and How Do These Variabilities Affect Clinical Pharmacology and Bioequivalence? , 2019, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[3]  B. Jones,et al.  Between‐Batch Pharmacokinetic Variability Inflates Type I Error Rate in Conventional Bioequivalence Trials: A Randomized Advair Diskus Clinical Trial , 2016, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[4]  B. Jones,et al.  Batch‐to‐batch pharmacokinetic variability confounds current bioequivalence regulations: A dry powder inhaler randomized clinical trial , 2016, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[5]  L. Hendeles,et al.  Pharmacokinetics of Orally Inhaled Drug Products , 2015, The AAPS Journal.

[6]  David Cipolla,et al.  Equivalence considerations for orally inhaled products for local action-ISAM/IPAC-RS European Workshop report. , 2012, Journal of aerosol medicine and pulmonary drug delivery.

[7]  A. Fuglsang,et al.  Role of pharmacokinetics in establishing bioequivalence for orally inhaled drug products: workshop summary report. , 2011, Journal of aerosol medicine and pulmonary drug delivery.

[8]  Lawrence X. Yu,et al.  Comparing Generic and Innovator Drugs: A Review of 12 Years of Bioequivalence Data from the United States Food and Drug Administration , 2009, The Annals of pharmacotherapy.

[9]  Donald J. Schuirmann A comparison of the Two One-Sided Tests Procedure and the Power Approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability , 1987, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[10]  J. Samet,et al.  Food and Drug Administration , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.