An insight into the properties of a two-stage design in bioequivalence studies

Pharmaceutical Research

Volumn 30, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1824-1835

  Karalis, Vangelis ^a   Macheras, Panos ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

Author keywords

adaptive design; bioequivalence; Monte Carlo simulations; sample size; two stage design

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOEQUIVALENCE; DRUG RESEARCH; ERROR; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLE SIZE; STUDY DESIGN; TWO STAGE DESIGN;

AREA UNDER CURVE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; SAMPLE SIZE; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY;

EID: 84878854698     PISSN: 07248741     EISSN: 1573904X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-013-1026-3     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. EMA (European Medicines Agency). Committee for medicinal products for human use, CHMP. Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence, London; 2010.
2. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products. General Considerations, Rockville, MD; 2003.
3. Efron B. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika. 1971;58(3):403-17.
4. Wei LJ. The adaptive biased coin design for sequential experiments. Ann Stat. 1978;6(1):92-100.
5. Lachin JM. Statistical properties of randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1988;9(4):289-311. (Pubitemid 19012636)
6. Demets DL. Group sequential procedures: calendar versus information time. Stat Med. 1987;8(10):1191-8. (Pubitemid 19255867)
7. Posch M, Bauer P. Adaptive two-stage designs and the conditional error function. Biom J. 1999;41(6):689-96.
8. Rosenberger WF, Stallard N, Ivanova A, Harper CN, Ricks ML. Optimal adaptive designs for binary response trials. Biometrics. 2001;57(3):909-13. (Pubitemid 32801189)
9. Shih WJ. Group sequential, sample size re-estimation and two-stage adaptive designs in clinical trials: a comparison. Stat Med. 2006;25(6):933-41. (Pubitemid 43337981)
10. Chung-Stein C, Anderson K, Gallo P, Collins S. Sample size re-estimation: a review and recommendations. Drug Inf J. 2006;40(4):475-84. (Pubitemid 44721125)
11. Lu Q, Tse SK, Chow SC. Analysis of time-to-event data under a two-stage survival adaptive design in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2010;20(4):705-19.
12. Emerson SS, Fleming TR. Adaptive methods: telling "the rest of the story". J Biopharm Stat. 2010;20(6):1150-65.
13. Mehta CR, Pocock SJ. Adaptive increase in sample size when interim results are promising: a practical guide with examples. Stat Med. 2011;30(28):3267-84.
14. Pocock SJ. Size of cancer clinical trials and stopping rules. Br J Cancer. 1978;38(6):757-66. (Pubitemid 9086488)
15. Pocock SJ. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika. 1977;64(2):191-9. (Pubitemid 8145484)
16. Bonferroni CE. Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilita. Instituto Superiore die Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenze. 1936;8:3-62.
17. O'Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979;35(3):549-56. (Pubitemid 10242750)
18. Lan KG, DeMets DL. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika. 1983;70(3):659-63.
19. DeMets DL, Hardy R, Friedman LM, Lan KK. Statistical aspects of early termination in the beta-blocker heart attack trial. Control Clin Trials. 1984;5(4):362-72. (Pubitemid 15175663)
20. Srinivasan R, Lanqenbebg P. A two-stage procedure with controlled error probabilities for testing bioequivalence. Biom J. 1986;28(7):826-33.
21. Racine-Poon A, Grieve AP, Fluhler H, Smith AF. A two-stage procedure for bioequivalence studies. Biometrics. 1987;43(4):847-56. (Pubitemid 18016770)
22. Gould AL. Group sequential extensions of a standard bioequivalence testing procedure. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1995;23(1):57-86.
23. Hauck WW, Preston PE, Bois FY. A group sequential approach to crossover trials for average bioequivalence. J Biopharm Stat. 1997;7(1):87-96. (Pubitemid 27167936)
24. Bandyopadhyay N, Dragalin V. Implementation of an adaptive group sequential design in a bioequivalence study. Pharm Stat. 2007;6(2):115-22. (Pubitemid 46938847)
25. World Health Organization Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations. 40th report, Annex 7, Regulatory guidance on interchangeability for multisource (generic) pharmaceutical products. WHO Technical Report 937, Geneva; 2006. p. 347-90.
26. National Institute of Public Health of Japan, Division of Drugs. Guideline for bioequivalence studies of generic products; 2012.
27. Health Canada, Ministry of Health, Health Products and Food Branch. Guidance document conduct and analysis of comparative bioavailability studies. 2012.
28. Korean Food and Drug Administration (KFDA). Guidance document for bioequivalence study. 2008.
29. Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Australian regulatory guidelines for prescription medicines Appendix 15: Biopharmaceutic studies. 2004.
30. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Draft guidance on Dexamethasone - Tobramycin (Rev. June); 2012.
31. Polli J, Cook J, Davit B, Dickinson P, Argenti D, Barbour N, et al. Summary workshop report: facilitating oral product development and reducing regulatory burden through novel approaches to assess bioavailability/ bioequivalence. AAPS J. 2012;14(3):627-38.
32. Potvin D, DiLiberti C, Hauck W, Parr A, Schuirmann D, Smith R. Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs. Pharm Stat. 2008;7(4):245-62.
33. Montague T, Potvin D, DiLiberti C, Hauck W, Parr A, Schuirmann D. Additional results for 'Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs'. Pharm Stat. 2012;11(1):8-13.
34. Cui L, Hung J, Wang SJ. Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials. Biometrics. 1999;55(3):853-7. (Pubitemid 29427088)
35. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. Rockville, MD; 2001.
36. Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1987;15(6):657-80.
37. Julious S. Sample sizes for clinical trials with normal data. Stat Med. 2004;23(12):1921-86. (Pubitemid 38787092)
38. Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L, Midha KK, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. Evaluation of the bioequivalence of highly-variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res. 2001;18(6):728-33. (Pubitemid 32783507)
39. Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Limits for the scaled average bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res. 2003;20(3):382-9. (Pubitemid 36288366)
40. Karalis V, Symillides M, Macheras P. Novel scaled average bioequivalence limits based on GMR and variability considerations. Pharm Res. 2004;21(10):1933-42. (Pubitemid 39390106)
41. Karalis V, Symillides M, Macheras P. Bioequivalence of highly variable drugs: a comparison of the newly proposed regulatory approaches by FDA and EMA. Pharm Res. 2012;29(4):1066-77.
42. Haidar SH, Davit B, Chen ML, Conner D, Lee L, Li QH, et al. Bioequivalence approaches for highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res. 2008;25(1):237-41.