Literature DB >> 8576845

Group sequential extensions of a standard bioequivalence testing procedure.

A L Gould1.   

Abstract

Bioequivalence trials compare the relative bioavailability of different formulations of a drug. Regulatory requirements for demonstrating average bioequivalence of two formulations generally include showing that a (say) 90% confidence interval for the ratio of expected pharmacologic end point values of the formulations lies between specified end points, e.g., 0.8-1.25. The likelihood of demonstrating bioequivalence when the formulations truly are equivalent depends on the sample size and on the variability of the pharmacologic end point. Group sequential bioequivalence testing provides a statistically valid way to accommodate misspecification of the variability in designing the trial by allowing for additional observations if a clear decision to accept or reject bioequivalence cannot be reached with the initial set of observations. This paper describes group sequential bioequivalence designs applicable in most practical situations that allow a decision to be reached with fewer observations than fixed-sample designs about 60% of the time at approximately the same average cost. The designs can be used in trials where the formulations are expected to have equal bioavailability and in trials where the formulations are expected to differ slightly. Data analyses are carried out exactly as for fixed-sample designs. Providing the capability of sequential decisions modestly affects the nominal significance levels, e.g., the required confidence level may be 93-94% instead of 90%.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8576845     DOI: 10.1007/bf02353786

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm        ISSN: 0090-466X


  18 in total

1.  Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment using a multiplicative model.

Authors:  D Hauschke; V W Steinijans; E Diletti; M Burke
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1992-10

2.  Symmetrical confidence intervals for bioequivalence trials.

Authors:  W J Westlake
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1976-12       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals.

Authors:  E Diletti; D Hauschke; V W Steinijans
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol       Date:  1991-01

Review 4.  Planning and monitoring of equivalence studies.

Authors:  S Durrleman; R Simon
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability.

Authors:  D J Schuirmann
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1987-12

6.  Use of confidence intervals in analysis of comparative bioavailability trials.

Authors:  W J Westlake
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1972-08       Impact factor: 3.534

7.  Statistical aspects of comparative bioavailability trials.

Authors:  W J Westlake
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Comparison of different methods for decision-making in bioequivalence assessment.

Authors:  D Mandallaz; J Mau
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Determining the probability of an important difference in bioavailability.

Authors:  B E Rodda; R L Davis
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 6.875

10.  Bioequivalence and interchangeability.

Authors:  S Hwang; P B Huber; M Hesney; K C Kwan
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1978-06       Impact factor: 3.534

View more
  2 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.  An insight into the properties of a two-stage design in bioequivalence studies.

Authors:  Vangelis Karalis; Panos Macheras
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 4.200

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.