Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5351/KJAS.2013.26.4.675

Some Statistical Considerations on 2×k Crossover Designs for Bioequivalence Trial  

Noh, So-Young (Department of Applied Statistics, Chung-Ang University)
Park, Sang-Gue (Department of Applied Statistics, Chung-Ang University)
Publication Information
The Korean Journal of Applied Statistics / v.26, no.4, 2013 , pp. 675-686 More about this Journal
Abstract
The Korea Food and Drug Administration(KFDA) recommends the use of a $2{\times}2$ crossover design to assess the bioequivalence of generic drugs. However, a standard $2{\times}2$ crossover design for bioequivalence trials is often considered problematic due to ethical and economic issues as highly variable drugs are usually required by large numbers of subjects when designing the trial. To overcome this problem a $2{\times}4$ crossover design has been a recommended option as per US regulations; in addition, a $2{\times}3$ crossover design has also recently drawn special attention as an efficient alternative. The current KFDA regulation requires an ANOVA table for every bioequivalence study; however, ANOVA tables of $2{\times}4$ and $2{\times}3$ crossover designs have never been published in the literature. This study shows the derivation of tables of analysis of variance for a $2{\times}4$ cross-over design and a $2{\times}3$ cross-over design. We also suggest a sample size formulas for $2{\times}2$, $2{\times}4$ and $2{\times}3$ crossover designs to provide information on the selection of efficient designs for highly variable drugs.
Keywords
Bioequivalence; Highly variable drugs; $2{\times}2$ cross-over design; $2{\times}4$ cross-over design; $2{\times}3$ crossover design; sample size;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Benet, L. (2006). Why highly variable drugs are safer, Meeting of FDA Committee for Pharmaceutical Science, http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/slides/2006-4241s22.ppt(assessed 3/17/2011).
2 Chow, S. C. and Liu, J. (2008). Design and Analysis of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies, Third edition, Chapman & Hall.
3 Dangi, Y. S., Soni, M. L. and Namdeo, K. P. (2010). Highly variable drugs: Bioequivalence requirements and regulatory perspectives, Journal of Current Pharmaceutical Research, 3, 24-28.
4 Endrenyi, L. and Tothfalusi, L. (2009). Regulatory conditions for the determination of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs, Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, 12, 138-149.   DOI
5 Jeong, G. and Park, S. (2011). On Evaluation of Bioequivalence for Highly Variable Drugs, The Korean Journal of Applied Statistics, 24, 1055-1076.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
6 IMS Health (2011). IMS Health Report. IMS.
7 Korea Food & Drug Administration (2012). Regulations of Bioequivalence Trials, Publication No.2012-103.
8 Jones, B. and Kenward, M. G. (2003). Design and Analysis of Cross-over Design, Second Edition, Chapman & Hall.
9 Park, S. (2007). On sample size determination of Bioequivalence Trials, Journal of Korean Data & Information Science Society, 18, 365-373.   과학기술학회마을
10 Schuirmann, D. J. (1987). A comparison of two one-sided tests procedures and the power approach for assessing the bioequivalence trials, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 15, 657-680.   DOI
11 Baek, I., Seong, S. and Kwon, K. (2009). Bioequivalence approaches for highly variable drugs: Issue and solution, Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 19, 50-60.   과학기술학회마을