ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2019
Sample size determination in bioequivalence studies using statistical assurance.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Single Dose, Randomized, Open-Label, Cross-Over Bioequivalence Study of Budesonide Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler in Healthy Chinese Subjects.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2025Trial
- Bioequivalence and Safety of Bilastine 20 mg Administered in Three Eight-Hourly Dose Versus a Single Daily Dose: A Randomized Two-Treatment, Two-Period, Cross-Over Comparative Study.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2025Trial
- Evaluation of pharmacokinetic interactions of amoxicillin with ranitidine in healthy human volunteers of Karachi, Pakistan.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Virtual Bioequivalence Assessment of Long-acting Injectable Suspensions Using PBPK Modeling: Part 1. Impact of particle Size on Formulation Variability.The AAPS journal · 2026Article
- Considerations of sex in bioequivalence assessments: does sex affect pharmacokinetic variability between evaluation formulations?European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Partial AUCs in Long-Acting Injectables: Rationale, Challenges, Variability, Usefulness, and Clinical Relevance.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- Sample Size Determination and Study Design Impact on Dose-Scale Pharmacodynamic Bioequivalence: a Case Study Using Orlistat.The AAPS journal · 2024Article
- Bayesian sample size determination for coefficient of variation of normal distribution.Journal of applied statistics · 2024Article
- Pharmacokinetics and Bioequivalence of Two Empagliflozin, with Evaluation in Healthy Jordanian Subjects under Fasting and Fed Conditions.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparison of pharmacokinetics and safety characteristics between two olopatadine hydrochloride 5 mg tablet formulations in healthy Korean subjects.Translational and clinical pharmacology · 2021Article
- Current Bioequivalence Study Designs in South Korea: A Comprehensive Analysis of Bioequivalence Study Reports Between 2013 and 2019.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Sample size determination in bioequivalence studies using statistical assurance.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsBioequivalence (BE) trials aim to demonstrate that the 90% confidence interval of the T/R-ratio of the pharmacokinetic metrics between two formulations (test [T] and reference [R]) of a drug is fully included in the acceptance interval [0.80, 1.25]. Traditionally, the sample size of BE trials is based on a power calculation based on the intrasubject variability coefficient of variation (CV) and the T/R-ratio of the metrics. Since the exact value of the T/R-ratio is not known prior to the trial, it is often assumed that the difference between the treatments does not exceed 5%. Hence, uncertainty about the T/R-ratio is expressed by using a fixed value for the sample size calculation. We propose to characterise the uncertainty about the T/R-ratio by a (normal) distribution for the log(T/R-ratio), with an assumed mean of log θ = 0.00 (i.e. θ = 1.00) and a standard deviation σ
methodsThe assurance of a clinical trial can be derived by integrating the power over the distribution of the input parameters, in this case, the assumed distribution of the log(T/R)-ratio. Because it is an average power, the assurance can be interpreted as a measure of the probability of success that does not depend on a specific assumed value for the log(T/R)-ratio. The relationship between power and assurance will be analysed by comparing the numerical outcomes.
resultsUsing the assurance concept, values of the standard deviation for the distribution of potential log(T/R)-ratios can be chosen to reflect the magnitude of uncertainty. For most practical cases (i.e. when 0.95 ≤ θ ≤ 1.05), the sample size is not, or only slightly, changed when σ = |log(θ)|.
conclusionThe advantage of deriving the assurance for BE trials is that uncertainty is directly expressed as a parameter of variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.