An iterative method to protect the type I error rate in bioequivalence studies under two-stage adaptive 2×2 crossover designs

Group-by-Treatment Interaction Effects in Comparative Bioavailability Studies

Comparative bioavailability studies often involve multiple groups of subjects for a variety of reasons, such as clinical capacity limitations. This raises questions about the validity of pooling data from these groups in the statistical analysis and whether a group-by-treatment interaction should be evaluated. We investigated the presence or absence of group-by-treatment interactions through both simulation techniques and a meta-study of well-controlled trials. Our findings reveal that the test falsely detects an interaction when no true group-by-treatment interaction exists. Conversely, when a true group-by-treatment interaction does exist, it often goes undetected. In our meta-study, the detected group-by-treatment interactions were observed at approximately the level of the test and, thus, can be considered false positives. Testing for a group-by-treatment interaction is both misleading and uninformative. It often falsely identifies an interaction when none exists and fails to detect a real one. This occurs because the test is performed between subjects in crossover designs, and studies are powered to compare treatments within subjects. This work demonstrates a lack of utility for including a group-by-treatment interaction in the model when assessing single-site comparative bioavailability studies, and the clinical trial study structure is divided into groups.

Finite sample corrections for average equivalence testing

Average (bio)equivalence tests are used to assess if a parameter, like the mean difference in treatment response between two conditions for example, lies within a given equivalence interval, hence allowing to conclude that the conditions have "equivalent" means. The two one-sided tests (TOST) procedure, consisting in testing whether the target parameter is respectively significantly greater and lower than some pre-defined lower and upper equivalence limits, is typically used in this context, usually by checking whether the confidence interval for the target parameter lies within these limits. This intuitive and visual procedure is however known to be conservative, especially in the case of highly variable drugs, where it shows a rapid power loss, often reaching zero, hence making it impossible to conclude for equivalence when it is actually true. Here, we propose a finite sample correction of the TOST procedure, theα $$ \alpha $$ -TOST, which consists in a correction of the significance level of the TOST allowing to guarantee a test size (or type-I error rate) ofα $$ \alpha $$ . This new procedure essentially corresponds to a finite sample and variability correction of the TOST procedure. We show that this procedure is uniformly more powerful than the TOST, easy to compute, and that its operating characteristics outperform the ones of its competitors. A case study about econazole nitrate deposition in porcine skin is used to illustrate the benefits of the proposed method and its advantages compared to other available procedures.

A Bayesian approach to pilot-pivotal trials for bioequivalence assessment

BACKGROUND

To demonstrate bioequivalence between two drug formulations, a pilot trial is often conducted prior to a pivotal trial to assess feasibility and gain preliminary information about the treatment effect. Due to the limited sample size, it is not recommended to perform significance tests at the conventional 5% level using pilot data to determine if a pivotal trial should take place. Whilst some authors suggest to relax the significance level, a Bayesian framework provides an alternative for informing the decision-making. Moreover, a Bayesian approach also readily permits possible incorporation of pilot data in priors for the parameters that underpin the pivotal trial.

METHODS

We consider two-sequence, two-period crossover designs that compare test (T) and reference (R) treatments. We propose a robust Bayesian hierarchical model, embedded with a scaling factor, to elicit a Go/No-Go decision using predictive probabilities. Following a Go decision, the final analysis to formally establish bioequivalence can leverage both the pilot and pivotal trial data jointly. A simulation study is performed to evaluate trial operating characteristics.

RESULTS

Compared with conventional procedures, our proposed method improves the decision-making to correctly allocate a Go decision in scenarios of bioequivalence. By choosing an appropriate threshold, the probability of correctly (incorrectly) making a No-Go (Go) decision can be ensured at a desired target level. Using both pilot and pivotal trial data in the final analysis can result in a higher chance of declaring bioequivalence. The false positive rate can be maintained in situations when T and R are not bioequivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed methodology is novel and effective in different stages of bioequivalence assessment. It can greatly enhance the decision-making process in bioequivalence trials, particularly in situations with a small sample size.