ArticlePharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Model-Based Approach for Designing an Efficient Bioequivalence Study for Highly Variable Drugs.
Article in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Pharmacometrics in Africa: Insights and Perspectives From the 2025 Pharmacometrics Africa Conference.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Bioequivalence and safety assessment of sorafenib tosylate tablets in healthy Chinese subjects under fasting conditions.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Simulating realistic patient profiles from pharmacokinetic models by a machine learning postprocessing correction of residual variability.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024Article
- A comparative evaluation of bioequivalence of Gan & Lee glargine U300 and ToujeoFrontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Belimumab in childhood systemic lupus erythematosus: A review of available data.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The statistical procedures as outlined by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for bioequivalence testing of highly variable drugs (HVDs) are complex. Additionally, the sample size is affected by clinical study designs or practical real-world problems, such as dropout rate or study budget. To overcome these difficulties, we propose a model-based approach for the selection of a study design with a sample size that satisfies the bioequivalence criteria using simulation studies based on a pharmacokinetic (PK) model. The designed approach was implemented using a simulation procedure considering some conventionally measured factors, such as geometric mean ratio and within-subject coefficient of variation, with various PK information important in determining bioequivalence. All simulation results were assessed according to the EMA and FDA guidelines. Furthermore, power calculations from simulation results were interpreted with regard to PK characteristics and compared among 2 × 2, 3 × 3, and 2 × 4 crossover designs to determine the efficient design considering appropriate sample size and duration of the clinical study. The proposed approach can be applied to bioequivalence studies of all drugs. However, the current study was targeted at HVDs, which are highly likely to require detailed decision making for sample size and study design.
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.