Liu Yuqing, Lou Wendy, Chow Shein-Chung
Division of Biostatistics, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
J Biopharm Stat. 2025 Apr 29:1-20. doi: 10.1080/10543406.2025.2489286.
Biosimilars play a crucial role in increasing the accessibility and affordability of biological therapies; thus, precise and reliable assessment methods are essential for their regulatory approval and clinical adoption. Currently, the 2-sequence 2-period crossover design is recommended for two-treatment biosimilar studies. However, such designs may be inadequate for the practical assessment when multiple test or reference products are involved, particularly in scenarios such as: (1) bridging biosimilar results across regulatory regions (e.g. the European Union, Canada, and United States), or (2) evaluating biosimilarity across different dosage forms or routes of administration. To address these challenges, multi-treatment designs such as Latin-square design, Williams design, and balanced incomplete block design can be considered. More recently, the complete N-of-1 trial design, which contains all permutations of treatments with replacement, has gained attention in biosimilar drug development, especially with the presence of carryover effects. However, detailed statistical methodologies and comprehensive performance comparisons of these designs are lacking in the context of multi-formulation studies. This study employs a linear mixed-effects model to estimate the contrast of treatment effects across three drug products within the framework of the designs under investigation. Subsequently, the relationship between sample size and relative efficiency is explored under same significance level and statistical power. The findings indicate that, for a given sample size, the complete N-of-1 design consistently achieves the lowest estimation variance relative to the alternative designs, thereby representing a more efficient design for biosimilar assessment under the conditions examined.
生物类似药在提高生物疗法的可及性和可负担性方面发挥着关键作用;因此,精确且可靠的评估方法对于其监管批准和临床应用至关重要。目前,两序列两周期交叉设计被推荐用于双治疗生物类似药研究。然而,当涉及多个测试或参比产品时,此类设计可能不足以进行实际评估,尤其是在以下情形中:(1)在不同监管区域(如欧盟、加拿大和美国)间衔接生物类似药的结果,或(2)评估不同剂型或给药途径的生物相似性。为应对这些挑战,可以考虑采用拉丁方设计、威廉姆斯设计和平衡不完全区组设计等多治疗设计。最近,包含所有可重复治疗排列的完全N-of-1试验设计在生物类似药开发中受到关注,尤其是在存在残留效应的情况下。然而,在多制剂研究的背景下,缺乏这些设计的详细统计方法和全面性能比较。本研究采用线性混合效应模型,在研究的设计框架内估计三种药品治疗效果的对比。随后,在相同显著性水平和统计功效下探讨样本量与相对效率之间的关系。研究结果表明,对于给定的样本量,相对于其他设计,完全N-of-1设计始终具有最低的估计方差,因此在研究条件下代表了一种更有效的生物类似药评估设计。