Skip to main content
Log in

In Silico Evaluation of the Potential Impact of Bioanalytical Bias Difference between Two Therapeutic Protein Formulations for Pharmacokinetic Assessment in a Biocomparability Study

  • Research Article
  • Published:
The AAPS Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Formulation changes at later stages of biotherapeutics development require biocomparability (BC) assessment. Using simulation, this study aims to determine the potential effect of bias difference observed between the two formulations after spiking into serum in passing or failing of a critical BC study. An ELISA method with 20% total error was used to assess any bias differences between a reference (RF) and test formulations (TF) in serum. During bioanalytical comparison of these formulations, a 9% difference in bias was observed between the two formulations in sera. To determine acceptable level of bias difference between the RF and TF bioanalytically, two in silico simulations were performed. The in silico analysis showed that the likelihood of the study meeting the BC criteria was >90% when the bias difference between RF and TF in serum was 9% and the number of subjects was ≥20 per treatment arm. An additional simulation showed that when the bias difference was increased to 13% and the number of subjects was <40, the likelihood of meeting the BC criteria decreased to 80%. The result from in silico analysis allowed the bioanalytical laboratory to proceed with sample analysis using a single calibrator and quality controls made from the reference formulation. This modeling approach can be applied to other BC studies with similar situations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wang D et al. Clinical trials a practical guide to design, analysis and reportings. Chapter 13 bioequivalence trials.

  2. DeSilva B et al. Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm Res. 2003;20:1885–900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thway TM et al. Applications of a planar electrochemiluminesce platform to support regulated studies of macromolecules: benefits and limitations in assay range. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2010;51:626–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Peer A. Variability and impact on design of bioequivalence studies. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010;106:146–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this research was provided by Amgen Inc. All authors own Amgen stocks. We would like to thank Dr. Michael Hall and Dr. Vibha Jawa (both from Amgen Inc) for their critical review and Dr Jeffery Talbot for providing editorial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theingi M. Thway.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thway, T.M., Macaraeg, C., Eschenberg, M. et al. In Silico Evaluation of the Potential Impact of Bioanalytical Bias Difference between Two Therapeutic Protein Formulations for Pharmacokinetic Assessment in a Biocomparability Study. AAPS J 17, 684–690 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-015-9741-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-015-9741-9

KEY WORDS

Navigation