Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2026

Comparative Analysis of Human Growth Hormone in Serum Using SPRi, Nano-SPRi and ELISA Assays
Published on: January 7, 2016
Bioequivalence studies for three formulations of a recombinant human growth hormone: challenges and lessons learned
Le Dao1, Joan Jacobs, Peter Kuebler
1Genentech, Inc., 1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA. le1@gene.com
Abstract:
Two bioequivalence (BE) studies in healthy volunteers comparing new formulations of the recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) Nutropin AQ (somatropin [rDNA origin] injection; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) with the currently marketed formulation (5 mg/mL) were conducted to extend available dosing options. All formulations were administered by subcutaneous (SC) injection ranging in volume from 0.25 to 1.0 mL depending on the formulation concentration. Study A was a 2-period crossover design to assess the BE of 5 and 10 mg/mL. The estimate for relative bioavailability (AUC(0-24 h)) was within the prespecified BE interval (0.80-1.25). However, while the C(max) estimate (1.17) was contained within the range for BE, the 90% CI (0.986-1.38) extended beyond the prespecified BE interval. As a result, Study A failed to show BE between the 5 and 10mg/mL formulations. Review of the data showed unexpected increased variability in the observed C(max). Further review of individual data suggested that in 4 subjects, the GH concentration profile of 1 of the 2 injections closely resembled the absorption kinetics of an intramuscular injection rather than an SC injection. Because study conduct may have contributed to these results, we performed a second study, Study B. This study incorporated injection technique training, a defined injection site, and a larger sample size to accommodate variability. It also included a third formulation, creating a 3-period crossover design to assess the BE of 2.5, 5, and 10 mg/mL. Study B results demonstrated BE of the new 2.5- and 10-mg/mL formulations to the reference 5-mg/mL formulation, and BE to each other, with all 90% CIs within the BE range of 0.80 to 1.25. Thus the challenge of recognizing that design issues could affect outcomes gave us the tools to perform a second study, and the positive results taught us that demonstrating BE is an issue not only of pharmacology, but also of study methodology and execution.
Related Concept Videos
Bioequivalence: Overview
Bioequivalence studies: Biowaivers
Pharmaceutical Alternatives: Polymorphic Form-Related and Particle Size-Related Therapeutic Nonequivalence
Equivalence: In Vitro and In Vivo Bioequivalence
Bioequivalence of Drugs: Drugs with Multiple Indications
Pharmaceutical Alternatives: Stability-Related Therapeutic Nonequivalence

