References
- Benet, L. Z., P. Jayachandran, K. Carroll, and E. B. Getz. 2019. Batch-to-batch and within-subject variability: What do we know and how do these variabilities affect clinical pharmacology and bioequivalence? Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 105 (2):326–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1294.
- Chow, S. C., L. Endrenyi, P. A. Lachenbruch, L. Y. Yang, and E. Chi. 2011. Scientific factors for assessing biosimilarity and drug interchangeability of follow-on biologics. Biosimilars 1 (1):13–26.
- Chow, S. C., J. Wang, L. Endrenyi, and P. A. Lachenbruch. 2013. Scientific considerations for assessing biosimilar products. Statistics in Medicine 32 (3):370–81. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5571.
- Combest, A. J., S. Wang, B. T. Healey, and D. J. Reitsma. 2014. Alternative statistical strategies for biosimilar drug development. Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal 3 (1):13–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.5639/gabij.2014.0301.006.
- EMA. 2003. Note for guidance on comparability of medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as drug substance - Non clinical and clinical issues. The European Medicines Agency Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use. EMA/CHMP/3097/02, London.
- EMA. 2005. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products. The European Medicines Agency Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use. EMA/CHMP/437/04, London.
- Getz, E. B., K. J. Carroll, B. Jones, and L. Z. Benet. 2016. Batch-to-batch pharmacokinetic variability confounds current bioequivalence regulations: A dry powder inhaler randomized clinical trial. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 100 (3):223–31. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.373.
- Getz, E. B., K. J. Carroll, J. Mielke, L. Z. Benet, and B. Jones. 2017. Between-batch pharmacokinetic variability inflates type I error rate in conventional bioequivalence trials: A randomized Advair Diskus clinical trial. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 101 (3):331–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.535.
- Hsieh, T. C., S. C. Chow, L. Y. Yang, and E. Chi. 2013. The evaluation of biosimilarity index based on reproducibility probability for assessing follow on biologics. Statistics in Medicine 32 (3):406–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5570.
- Kang, S. H., and S. C. Chow. 2013. Statistical assessment of biosimilarity based on relative distance between follow on biologics. Statistics in Medicine 32 (3):382–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5582.
- Kang, S. H., J. Y. Jung, and S. H. Baik. 2015. Sample size calculations for the development of biosimilar products based on binary endpoints. Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods 22 (4):389–99. doi:https://doi.org/10.5351/CSAM.2015.22.4.389.
- Kang, S. H., and W. Shin. 2015. Statistical assessment of biosimilarity based on the relative distance between follow-on biologics in the (k+1)-arm parallel design. Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods 22 (6):605–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.5351/CSAM.2015.22.6.605.
- Li, J. D., and J. Xu. 2017. Bridging a new biological product with its reference product. In Biosimilar clinical development: Scientific considerations and new methodologies, ed. K. B. Barker, S. M. Menon, R. B. D'Agostino Sr., S. Xu, and B. Jin, 117–134. Boca, Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
- Miettinen, O., and M. Nurminen. 1985. Comparative analysis of two rates. Statistics in Medicine 4 (2):213–26.
- Park, J., and S. H. Kang. 2019. The determination of biosimilarity margin and the assessment of biosimilarity for an (m+1)-arm parallel design. Submitted.
- Pottackal, G. J., and T. Mathew. 2017. On the assessment of average biosimilarity based on a three-arm parallel design. Journal of Statistical Theory and Applications 16 (4):508–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.2991/jsta.2017.16.4.7.
- Shin, W., and S. H. Kang. 2016. Statistical assessment of biosimilarity based on the relative distance between follow-on biologics for binary endpoints. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 26 (2):227–39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2014.979195.
- Tsong, Y., X. Dong, and M. Shen. 2017. Development of statistical methods for analytical similarity assessment. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 27 (2):197–205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2016.1272606.
- US FDA. 2015. Scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product: Guidance for industry. Silver Springs, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services.
- US FDA. 2016a. FDA briefing document: Arthritis advisory committee meeting. ABP 501, a proposed biosimilar to Humira. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/advisorycommittees/committeesmeetingmaterials/drugs/arthritisadvisorycommittee/ucm510293.pdf
- US FDA. 2016b. FDA briefing document: Arthritis advisory committee meeting. CT-P13, a proposed biosimilar to Remicade. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/%E2%80%A6/UCM484859.pdf.
- Weinblatt, M. E., A. Baranauskaite, J. Niebrzydowski, E. Dokoupilova, A. Zielinska, J. Jaworski, A. Racewicz, M. Pileckyte, K. Jedrychowicz-Rosiak, S. Y. Cheong., et al. 2018. Phase III randomized study of SB5, an adalimumab biosimilar, versus reference adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatology 70 (1):40–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/art.40336.
- World Health Organization. 2009. Guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs). Geneva: World Health Organization.
- Zhang, N., J. Yang, S. C. Chow, L. Endrenyi, and E. Chi. 2013. Impact of variability on the choice of biosimilarity limits in assessing follow on biologics. Statistics in Medicine 32 (3):424–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5567.