Some issues in the design and analysis of equivalence trials

Drug Information Journal

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 109-118

  Hauck, Walter W ^a   Anderson, Sharon ^a  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Active control; Bioequivalence; Clinical equivalence; Confidence intervals; Intent to treat

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG RESEARCH; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0033004225     PISSN: 00928615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009286159903300114     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Senn S. Inherent difficulties with active control equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1993;12:2367-2375.
2. Kirshner B. Methodological standards for assessing therapeutic equivalence. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44: 839-849.
3. McMaster University Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. How to read clinical journals: V: To distinguish useful from useless or even harmful therapy. Canad Med Assoc J. 1981;124: 1156-1162.
4. Blackwelder WC. "Proving the null hypothesis" in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1982;3:345-353.
5. Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1987;15:657-680.
6. Hauschke D, Steinijans VW, Diletti E. A distribution-free procedure for statistical analyses of bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxcol. 1990;28:72-78.
7. Pledger G, Hall D. Active control equivalence studies: Do they address the efficacy issue? In: Peace KE ed. Statistical Issues In Drug Research and Development. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1990:226-238.
8. Amato DA. The design and analysis of equivalence trails. In: Finkelstein DM, Schoenfeld DA eds. AIDS Clinical Trials. New York: Wiley-Liss; 1995:155-265.
9. Morikawa T, Yoshida M. A useful testing strategy in phase III trials: Combined test of superiority and test of equivalence. J Biopharm Statist. 1995;5:297-306.
10. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J. 1986;292:746-750.
11. Simon R. Confidence intervals for reporting results of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:429-435.
12. Braitman LE. Confidence intervals assess both clinical significance and statistical significance. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:515-517.
13. Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Sequential equivalence testing and repeated confidence intervals, with applications to normal and binary responses. Biometrics. 1993;49:31-43.
14. Hauck WW, Anderson S. Types of bioequivalence and related statistical considerations. Int J Clin Pharmacol, Ther Toxicol. 1992;30:181-187.
15. Berger RL, Hsu JC. Bioequivalence trials, intersection-union tests, and equivalence confidence sets (with discussion). Stat Sci. 1997;11:283-319.
16. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: The importance of rigorous methods. Brit Med J. 1996;313:36-39.
17. Dunnett CW, Gent M. An alternative to the use of two-sided tests in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1996;15: 1729-1738.
18. Anderson S, Hauck WW. Consideration of individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1990; 18:259-273.
19. Sheiner LB. Bioequivalence revisited. Stat Med. 1992;11:1777-1788.
20. Schall R, Luus HG. On population and individual bioequivalence. Stat Med. 1993;12:1109-1124.
21. Hauck WW, Bois FY, Hyslop T, Gee L, Anderson S. A parametric approach to population bioequivalence. Stat Med. 1997;16:441-454.
22. O'Brien PC. Comparing two samples: Extensions of the t, rank-sum, and log-rank tests. J Am Stat Assoc. 1988;83:52-61.
23. Blair RC, Morel JG. On the use of the generalized t and generalized rank-sum statistics in medical research. Stat Med. 1992;11:491-501.
24. Temple R. Government viewpoint of clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 1982;16:10-17.
25. Diletti E, Hauschke D, Steinijans VW. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1991;29:1-8.
26. Bristol DR. Planning survival studies to compare a treatment to an active control. J Biopharm Stat. 1993;3:153-158.
27. Frick H. On approximate and exact sample sizes of equivalence tests for binomial proportions. Biom J. 1994;36:841-854.
28. Roebruck P. Comparison of tests and sample size formulae for proving therapeutic equivalence based on the difference of binomial probabilities. Stat Med. 1995;14:1583-1594.
29. Lewis JA, Machin D. Intention to treat - Who should use ITT? Br J Cancer. 1993;68:647-650.
30. Sheiner LB. The intellectual health of clinical drug evaluation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1991;50:4-9.
31. Sheiner LB, Rubin DB. Intention-to-treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1995;57:6-15.
32. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables (with discussion). J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91:444-472.
33. Law MG, Kaldor JM. Survival analyses of randomized clinical trials adjusted for patients who switch treatments. Stat Med. 1996;15:2069-2076.
34. Robins JM. Correction for non-compliance in equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:269-302.
35. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: Wiley; 1987.
36. Anderson S, Hauck WW. The transitivity of bioequivalence testing: Potential for drift. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1996;34:369-374.