样本大小的确定和研究设计对剂量尺度药效生物等效性的影响:使用奥利司他的案例研究。

IF 5 3区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Lian Xu, Sanwang Li, Wei Wu, Zeneng Cheng, Feifan Xie
{"title":"样本大小的确定和研究设计对剂量尺度药效生物等效性的影响:使用奥利司他的案例研究。","authors":"Lian Xu, Sanwang Li, Wei Wu, Zeneng Cheng, Feifan Xie","doi":"10.1208/s12248-024-00951-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dose-scale pharmacodynamic bioequivalence is recommended for evaluating the consistency of generic and innovator formulations of certain locally acting drugs, such as orlistat. This study aimed to investigate the standard methodology for sample size determination and the impact of study design on dose-scale pharmacodynamic bioequivalence using orlistat as the model drug. A population pharmacodynamic model of orlistat was developed using NONMEM 7.5.1 and utilized for subsequent simulations. Three different study designs were evaluated across various predefined relative bioavailability ratios of test/reference (T/R) formulations. These designs included Study Design 1 (2×1 crossover with T1 60 mg, R1 60 mg, and R2 120 mg), Study Design 2 (2×1 crossover with T2 120 mg, R1 60 mg, and R2 120 mg), and Study Design 3 (2×2 crossover with T1 60 mg, T2 120 mg, R1 60 mg, and R2 120 mg). Sample sizes were determined using a stochastic simulation and estimation approach. Under the same T/R ratio and power, Study Design 3 required the minimum sample size for bioequivalence, followed by Study Design 1, while Study Design 2 performed the worst. For Study Designs 1 and 3, a larger sample size was needed on the T/R ratio < 1.0 side for the same power compared to that on the T/R ratio > 1.0 side. The opposite asymmetry was observed for Study Design 2. We demonstrated that Study Design 3 is most effective for reducing the sample size for orlistat bioequivalence studies, and the impact of T/R ratio on sample size shows asymmetry.</p>","PeriodicalId":50934,"journal":{"name":"AAPS Journal","volume":"26 4","pages":"77"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sample Size Determination and Study Design Impact on Dose-Scale Pharmacodynamic Bioequivalence: a Case Study Using Orlistat.\",\"authors\":\"Lian Xu, Sanwang Li, Wei Wu, Zeneng Cheng, Feifan Xie\",\"doi\":\"10.1208/s12248-024-00951-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Dose-scale pharmacodynamic bioequivalence is recommended for evaluating the consistency of generic and innovator formulations of certain locally acting drugs, such as orlistat. This study aimed to investigate the standard methodology for sample size determination and the impact of study design on dose-scale pharmacodynamic bioequivalence using orlistat as the model drug. A population pharmacodynamic model of orlistat was developed using NONMEM 7.5.1 and utilized for subsequent simulations. Three different study designs were evaluated across various predefined relative bioavailability ratios of test/reference (T/R) formulations. These designs included Study Design 1 (2×1 crossover with T1 60 mg, R1 60 mg, and R2 120 mg), Study Design 2 (2×1 crossover with T2 120 mg, R1 60 mg, and R2 120 mg), and Study Design 3 (2×2 crossover with T1 60 mg, T2 120 mg, R1 60 mg, and R2 120 mg). Sample sizes were determined using a stochastic simulation and estimation approach. Under the same T/R ratio and power, Study Design 3 required the minimum sample size for bioequivalence, followed by Study Design 1, while Study Design 2 performed the worst. For Study Designs 1 and 3, a larger sample size was needed on the T/R ratio < 1.0 side for the same power compared to that on the T/R ratio > 1.0 side. The opposite asymmetry was observed for Study Design 2. We demonstrated that Study Design 3 is most effective for reducing the sample size for orlistat bioequivalence studies, and the impact of T/R ratio on sample size shows asymmetry.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AAPS Journal\",\"volume\":\"26 4\",\"pages\":\"77\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AAPS Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-024-00951-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAPS Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-024-00951-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

剂量尺度药效学生物等效性被推荐用于评估某些局部作用药物(如奥利司他)的仿制药和创新药的一致性。本研究旨在以奥利司他为模型药物,研究确定样本量的标准方法以及研究设计对剂量尺度药效学生物等效性的影响。研究人员使用 NONMEM 7.5.1 建立了奥利司他的群体药效学模型,并用于随后的模拟。针对试验/参照(T/R)制剂的各种预定相对生物利用度比,对三种不同的研究设计进行了评估。这些设计包括研究设计 1(T1 60 毫克、R1 60 毫克和 R2 120 毫克的 2×1 交叉)、研究设计 2(T2 120 毫克、R1 60 毫克和 R2 120 毫克的 2×1 交叉)和研究设计 3(T1 60 毫克、T2 120 毫克、R1 60 毫克和 R2 120 毫克的 2×2 交叉)。样本量采用随机模拟和估计方法确定。在相同的 T/R 比值和功率条件下,研究设计 3 所需的生物等效性样本量最小,其次是研究设计 1,而研究设计 2 的表现最差。就研究设计 1 和研究设计 3 而言,与 T/R 比率 > 1.0 的一方相比,T/R 比率 < 1.0 的一方需要更大的样本量才能达到相同的功率。我们证明,研究设计 3 对于减少奥利司他生物等效性研究的样本量最为有效,而 T/R 比率对样本量的影响则呈现出不对称性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Sample Size Determination and Study Design Impact on Dose-Scale Pharmacodynamic Bioequivalence: a Case Study Using Orlistat.

Sample Size Determination and Study Design Impact on Dose-Scale Pharmacodynamic Bioequivalence: a Case Study Using Orlistat.

Dose-scale pharmacodynamic bioequivalence is recommended for evaluating the consistency of generic and innovator formulations of certain locally acting drugs, such as orlistat. This study aimed to investigate the standard methodology for sample size determination and the impact of study design on dose-scale pharmacodynamic bioequivalence using orlistat as the model drug. A population pharmacodynamic model of orlistat was developed using NONMEM 7.5.1 and utilized for subsequent simulations. Three different study designs were evaluated across various predefined relative bioavailability ratios of test/reference (T/R) formulations. These designs included Study Design 1 (2×1 crossover with T1 60 mg, R1 60 mg, and R2 120 mg), Study Design 2 (2×1 crossover with T2 120 mg, R1 60 mg, and R2 120 mg), and Study Design 3 (2×2 crossover with T1 60 mg, T2 120 mg, R1 60 mg, and R2 120 mg). Sample sizes were determined using a stochastic simulation and estimation approach. Under the same T/R ratio and power, Study Design 3 required the minimum sample size for bioequivalence, followed by Study Design 1, while Study Design 2 performed the worst. For Study Designs 1 and 3, a larger sample size was needed on the T/R ratio < 1.0 side for the same power compared to that on the T/R ratio > 1.0 side. The opposite asymmetry was observed for Study Design 2. We demonstrated that Study Design 3 is most effective for reducing the sample size for orlistat bioequivalence studies, and the impact of T/R ratio on sample size shows asymmetry.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AAPS Journal
AAPS Journal 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.40%
发文量
109
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The AAPS Journal, an official journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), publishes novel and significant findings in the various areas of pharmaceutical sciences impacting human and veterinary therapeutics, including: · Drug Design and Discovery · Pharmaceutical Biotechnology · Biopharmaceutics, Formulation, and Drug Delivery · Metabolism and Transport · Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Pharmacometrics · Translational Research · Clinical Evaluations and Therapeutic Outcomes · Regulatory Science We invite submissions under the following article types: · Original Research Articles · Reviews and Mini-reviews · White Papers, Commentaries, and Editorials · Meeting Reports · Brief/Technical Reports and Rapid Communications · Regulatory Notes · Tutorials · Protocols in the Pharmaceutical Sciences In addition, The AAPS Journal publishes themes, organized by guest editors, which are focused on particular areas of current interest to our field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信