RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 On FDA's Approach to Demonstration of Analytical Similarity
JF PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology
JO PDA J Pharm Sci Technol
FD Parenteral Drug Association (PDA)
SP pdajpst.2016.006551
DO 10.5731/pdajpst.2016.006551
A1 Yang, Harry
A1 Novick, Steven
A1 Burdick, Rick
YR 2016
UL http://journal.pda.org/content/early/2016/06/18/pdajpst.2016.006551.abstract
AB Analytical similarity is the foundation for demonstration of biosimilarity between a proposed product and a reference product. For this assessment, currently the FDA recommends a tiered system in which quality attributes are categorized into three tiers commensurate with their risk and approaches of varying statistical rigor are subsequently used for the three-tier quality attributes. Key to the analyses of Tiers 1 and 2 quality attributes is the establishment of equivalence acceptance criterion and quality range. For particular licensure applications, the FDA has provided advice on statistical methods for demonstration of analytical similarity. For example, for Tier 1 assessment, an equivalence test can be used based on an equivalence margin of 1.5 , where is the reference product variability estimated by the sample standard deviation from a sample of reference lots. The quality range for demonstrating Tier 2 analytical similarity is of the form where the constant K is appropriately justified. To demonstrate Tier 2 analytical similarity, a large percentage (e.g., 90%) of test product must fall in the quality range. In this paper, through both theoretical derivations and simulations, we show that when the reference drug product (DP) lots are correlated, the sample standard deviation underestimates the true reference product variability . As a result, substituting for in the Tier 1 equivalence acceptance criterion and the Tier 2 quality range inappropriately reduces the statistical power and the ability to declare analytical similarity. Also explored is the impact of correlation among DP lots on Type I error rate and power. Three methods based on generalized pivotal quantities are introduced, and their performance is compared against a two-one-sided tests (TOST) approach. Finally, strategies to mitigate risk of correlation among the reference products lots are discussed.