Equivalence testing in dose-response studies

Drug Information Journal

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 551-562

  Channon, Edward J ^a  

^a BASF Pharma   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Active control equivalence; Dose response; Equivalence testing; Interpolation; Multiple comparisons

Indexed keywords

BIOEQUIVALENCE; COVARIANCE; DOSE RESPONSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SAMPLING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0034041368     PISSN: 00928615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009286150003400223     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Chuang-Stein C. Clinical equivalence - a clarification. Drug Inf J. 1999;33:1189-1194.
2. Hwang I, Morikawa T. Design issues in noninferiority/equivalence trials. Drug Inf J. 1999;33:1205-1218.
3. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Note for Guidance on Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials. (ICH topic E9). London: European Medicines Evaluation Agency; 1998.
4. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Note for Guidance on Dose-Response Information to Support Drug Registration. (ICH topic E4). London: European Medicines Evaluation Agency; 1994.
5. Ebbutt AF, Frith L. Practical issues in equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:1691-1701.
6. Röhmel J. Therapeutic equivalence investigations: statistical considerations. Stat Med. 1998;17:1703-1714.
7. Dunnett CW, Tamhane AC. Multiple testing to establish superiority/equivalence of a new treatment compared with k standard treatments. Stat Med. 1997; 16:2489-2506.
8. Bauer P, Rohmel J, Maurer W, Hothorn L. Testing strategies in multi-dose experiments including active control. Stat Med. 1998;17(18):2133-2146.
9. Hsu JC, Berger RL. Stepwise confidence intervals without multiplicity adjustment for dose-response and toxicity studies. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94(446); 468-482.
10. Senn S. Statistical Issues in Drug Development. Chichester: Wiley; 1997:207-217.
11. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Points to Consider on Biostatistical/Methodological Issues Arising from Recent CPMP Discussions on Licensing Applications: Superiority, Non-inferiority and Equivalence. (Draft). London: European Medicines Evaluation Agency; 1999.
12. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. Br Med J. 1996;313:36-39.
13. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Points to Consider on Biostatistical/Methodological Issues Arising from Recent CPMP Discussions on Licensing Applications: Choice of Delta. (concept paper). London: European Medicines Evaluation Agency; 1999.
14. Hauck WW, Anderson S. Some issues in the design and analysis of equivalence trials. Drug Inf J. 1999; 33(1):109-118.
15. Marcus R., Peritz, E, Gabriel KR. On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika. 1976;63:655-660.
16. Hochberg Y, Tamhane AC. Multiple Comparison Procedures. New York: John Wiley; 1987; pages 54, 132, 294.
17. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT user's guide, Version 6. Fourth edition, Vol 2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 1989.
18. Wolfram, S. The Mathematica Book. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Wolfram Media/Cambridge University Press; 1996.
19. Williams DA. A test for difference between treatment means where several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control. Biometrics. 1971;27:103-117.
20. Williams DA. The comparison of several dose levels with a zero dose control. Biometrics. 1972;28:519-531.