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.

Exact sample size calculation for bioequivalence evaluation for highly variable drugs

On Sample Size Calculation in Bioequivalence Trials

Sample size determination and post hoc statistical power in bioequivalence studies

Comparison of methods for the determination of sample size and power in assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability

An Adaptive Three‐Arm Comparative Clinical Endpoint Bioequivalence Study Design With Unblinded Sample Size Re‐Estimation and Optimized Allocation Ratio

Statistical Tests for Population Bioequivalence

Power Analysis and Sample Size Determination for Crossover Trials with Application to Bioequivalence Assessment of Topical Ophthalmic Drugs Using Serial Sampling Pharmacokinetic Data

Comparison between two different bioequivalence designs with within-subject variation around 30％

Sample Size Determination and Study Design Impact on Dose-Scale Pharmacodynamic Bioequivalence: a Case Study Using Orlistat

Adjustment for unbalanced sample size for analytical biosimilar equivalence assessment

Individual Bioequivalence Testing under 2×3 Designs

A Two-Way Proposal for the Determination of Bioequivalence for Narrow Therapeutic Index Drugs in the European Union

Scaled average bioequivalence methods for highly variable drugs: Leveling‐off soft limits and the EMA's 2010 guideline (some ways to improve its type I error control)

Methods to Control the Empirical Type I Error Rate in Average Bioequivalence Tests for Highly Variable Drugs

Determining Equivalence for Generic Locally Acting Drug Products

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

A Simple Formula for Sample Size Calculation in Equivalence Studies

Data re-analysis after the finish of bioequivalence studies by using bootstrap method

A Bayesian Group Sequential Design for Randomized Biosimilar Clinical Trials with Adaptive Information Borrowing from Historical Data

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

Comparative Analyses of Bioequivalence Assessment Methods for In Vitro Permeation Test Data