Abstract:In a 2×2 crossover trial for establishing average bioequivalence (ABE) of a generic agent and a currently marketed drug, the recommended approach to hypothesis testing is the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure, which depends, among other things, on the estimated within-subject variability. The power of this procedure, and therefore the sample size required to achieve a minimum power, depends on having a good estimate of this variability. When there is uncertainty, it is advisable to plan the design in two stages, with an interim sample size reestimation after the first stage, using an interim estimate of the within-subject variability. One method and 3 variations of doing this were proposed by Potvin et al. Using simulation, the operating characteristics, including the empirical type I error rate, of the 4 variations (called Methods A, B, C, and D) were assessed by Potvin et al and Methods B and C were recommended. However, none of these 4 variations formally controls the type I error rate of falsely claiming ABE, even though the amount of inflation produced by Method C was considered acceptable. A major disadvantage of assessing type I error rate inflation using simulation is that unless all possible scenarios for the intended design and analysis are investigated, it is impossible to be sure that the type I error rate is controlled. Here, we propose an alternative, principled method of sample size reestimation that is guaranteed to control the type I error rate at any given significance level. This method uses a new version of the inverse-normal combination of p-values test, in conjunction with standard group sequential techniques, that is more robust to large deviations in initial assumptions regarding the variability of the pharmacokinetic endpoints. The sample size reestimation step is based on significance levels and power requirements that are conditional on the first-stage results. This necessitates a discussion and exploitation of the peculiar properties of the power curve of the TOST testing procedure. We illustrate our approach with an example based on a real ABE study and compare the operating characteristics of our proposed method with those of Method B of Povin et al.

A Note on Sample Size Calculation for Mean Comparisons Based on Noncentral T-Statistics.

On Sample Size Calculation in Bioequivalence Trials

On sample size calculation based on odds ratio in clinical trials.

A noniterative sample size procedure for tests based on t distributions

A Simple Formula for Sample Size Calculation in Equivalence Studies

Sample Size Determination for Establishing Equivalence/Noninferiority Via Ratio of Two Proportions in Matched–Pair Design

Sample size determination for establishing equivalence/noninferiority via ratio of two proportions in matched-pair design.

Sample Size Calculation for Comparing Variabilities

Sample Size Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Assessing Equivalence/noninferiority for Paired Binary Data

ISSUES IN BIOMEDICAL STATISTICS: COMPARING MEANS UNDER NORMAL DISTRIBUTION THEORY

Statistical Analysis of Noninferiority Trials with a Rate Ratio in Small-Sample Matched-Pair Designs.

Sample Size Calculation for “Gold-Standard” Noninferiority Trials With Fixed Margins and Negative Binomial Endpoints

A Sample Size Planning Approach That Considers Both Statistical Significance and Clinical Significance

Are the tests overpowered or underpowered? A unified solution to correctly specify type I errors in design of clinical trials for two sample proportions

Bayesian sample size determination in a three-arm non-inferiority trial with binary endpoints

Sample size determination based on rank tests in clinical trials.

Controlling the type I error rate in two-stage sequential adaptive designs when testing for average bioequivalence

Sample size calculation in clinical trial using R

Statistical power and estimation of the number of required subjects for a study based on the t-test: a surgeon's primer

Optimal sample size allocation for two‐arm superiority and non‐inferiority trials with binary endpoints

On Testing the Mean Equivalence of Treatments from Correlated Normal Populations