Literature DB >> 24871343

A sequential bioequivalence design with a potential ethical advantage.

Anders Fuglsang1.   

Abstract

This paper introduces a two-stage approach for evaluation of bioequivalence, where, in contrast to the designs of Diane Potvin and co-workers, two stages are mandatory regardless of the data obtained at stage 1. The approach is derived from Potvin's method C. It is shown that under circumstances with relatively high variability and relatively low initial sample size, this method has an advantage over Potvin's approaches in terms of sample sizes while controlling type I error rates at or below 5% with a minute occasional trade-off in power. Ethically and economically, the method may thus be an attractive alternative to the Potvin designs. It is also shown that when using the method introduced here, average total sample sizes are rather independent of initial sample size. Finally, it is shown that when a futility rule in terms of sample size for stage 2 is incorporated into this method, i.e., when a second stage can be abolished due to sample size considerations, there is often an advantage in terms of power or sample size as compared to the previously published methods.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24871343      PMCID: PMC4070248          DOI: 10.1208/s12248-014-9622-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AAPS J        ISSN: 1550-7416            Impact factor:   4.009


  3 in total

1.  Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs.

Authors:  Diane Potvin; Charles E DiLiberti; Walter W Hauck; Alan F Parr; Donald J Schuirmann; Robert A Smith
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2008 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.894

2.  Futility rules in bioequivalence trials with sequential designs.

Authors:  Anders Fuglsang
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 4.009

3.  Additional results for 'Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs'.

Authors:  Timothy H Montague; Diane Potvin; Charles E Diliberti; Walter W Hauck; Alan F Parr; Donald J Schuirmann
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2011-02-10       Impact factor: 1.894

  3 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Two-stage designs in bioequivalence trials.

Authors:  Helmut Schütz
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Two-Stage Adaptive Designs for Three-Treatment Bioequivalence Studies.

Authors:  Michael J Grayling; Adrian P Mander; James M S Wason
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 1.452

3.  10th Anniversary of a Two-Stage Design in Bioequivalence. Why Has it Still Not Been Implemented?

Authors:  Michał Kaza; Alexander Sokolovskyi; Piotr J Rudzki
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 4.200

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.