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.

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

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

Sample size determination and post hoc statistical power in bioequivalence studies

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

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

Bootstrap method-based estimation on the confidence interval for additive interaction in cohort studies

Considerations on the repeated bioequivalence studies in control of the type I error

Analysis of small sample size studies using nonparametric bootstrap test with pooled resampling method

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

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

Statistical Tests for Population Bioequivalence

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

A Calibrated Power Prior Approach to Borrow Information from Historical Data with Application to Biosimilar Clinical Trials.

On Sample Size Calculation in Bioequivalence Trials

Elastic Meta-Analytic-predictive Prior for Dynamically Borrowing Information from Historical Data with Application to Biosimilar Clinical Trials.

Advantage Of A Population Pharmacokinetic Method For Evaluating The Bioequivalence And Accuracy Of Parameter Estimation Of Pidotimod

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

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

The use of bootstrap methods for analysing Health-Related Quality of Life outcomes (particularly the SF-36)

Bridging Continual Reassessment Method for Phase I Clinical Trials in Different Ethnic Populations

The use of real-world data for clinical investigation of effectiveness in drug development