Effect of Study Design on Sample Size in Studies Intended to Evaluate Bioequivalence of Inhaled Short-Acting β-Agonist Formulations

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.