Reference datasets for 2-treatment, 2-sequence, 2-period bioequivalence studies

Reference Datasets for Studies in a Replicate Design Intended for Average Bioequivalence with Expanding Limits

In order to help companies qualify and validate the software used to evaluate bioequivalence trials in a replicate design intended for average bioequivalence with expanding limits, this work aims to define datasets with known results. This paper releases 30 reference datasets into the public domain along with proposed consensus results. A proposal is made for results that should be used as validation targets. The datasets were evaluated by seven different software packages according to methods proposed by the European Medicines Agency. For the estimation of CV_wR and Method A, all software packages produced results that are in agreement across all datasets. Due to different approximations of the degrees of freedom, slight differences were observed in two software packages for Method B in highly incomplete datasets. All software packages were suitable for the estimation of CV_wR and Method A. For Method B, different methods for approximating the denominator degrees of freedom could lead to slight differences, which eventually could lead to contrary decisions in very rare borderline cases.

On the Incorrect Statistical Calculations of the Kinetica Software Package in Imbalanced Designs

This regulatory note supports the previous findings that suggest that the software package Kinetica, up to version 5.0.10, provides incorrect results for the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio test/reference where the groups are imbalanced in 2 × 2 crossover designs and parallel designs. The incorrect calculation results from using the simplified formula that is shown as an example in the Canadian guideline for a balanced dataset, but which provides an erroneous point estimate and confidence interval width in cases of imbalanced designs. Importantly, this software is rarely used for regulatory submissions in the European Union according to the search conducted in the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Care Products. According to our data, the error is minor if the imbalance between groups is small. However, the error may be relevant if the sample size is small and the imbalance is large. Therefore, bioequivalence studies should be reanalyzed by regulatory agencies to confirm the submitted results.

Reference datasets for bioequivalence trials in a two-group parallel design

In order to help companies qualify and validate the software used to evaluate bioequivalence trials with two parallel treatment groups, this work aims to define datasets with known results. This paper puts a total 11 datasets into the public domain along with proposed consensus obtained via evaluations from six different software packages (R, SAS, WinNonlin, OpenOffice Calc, Kinetica, EquivTest). Insofar as possible, datasets were evaluated with and without the assumption of equal variances for the construction of a 90% confidence interval. Not all software packages provide functionality for the assumption of unequal variances (EquivTest, Kinetica), and not all packages can handle datasets with more than 1000 subjects per group (WinNonlin). Where results could be obtained across all packages, one showed questionable results when datasets contained unequal group sizes (Kinetica). A proposal is made for the results that should be used as validation targets.