An iterative method to protect the type I error rate in bioequivalence studies under two-stage adaptive 2×2 crossover designs.

Bioequivalence studies are the pivotal clinical trials submitted to regulatory agencies to support the marketing applications of generic drug products. Average bioequivalence (ABE) is used to determine whether the mean values for the pharmacokinetic measures determined after administration of the test and reference products are comparable. Two-stage 2×2 crossover adaptive designs (TSDs) are becoming increasingly popular because they allow making assumptions on the clinically meaningful treatment effect and a reliable guess for the unknown within-subject variability. At an interim look, if ABE is not declared with an initial sample size, they allow to increase it depending on the estimated variability and to enroll additional subjects at a second stage, or to stop for futility in case of poor likelihood of bioequivalence. This is crucial because both parameters must clearly be prespecified in protocols, and the strategy agreed with regulatory agencies in advance with emphasis on controlling the overall type I error. We present an iterative method to adjust the significance levels at each stage which preserves the overall type I error for a wide set of scenarios which should include the true unknown variability value. Simulations showed adjusted significance levels higher than 0.0300 in most cases with type I error always below 5%, and with a power of at least 80%. TSDs work particularly well for coefficients of variation below 0.3 which are especially useful due to the balance between the power and the percentage of studies proceeding to stage 2. Our approach might support discussions with regulatory agencies.

[2]  A. Fuglsang Futility Rules in Bioequivalence Trials with Sequential Designs , 2013, The AAPS Journal.

[3]  L. Endrenyi,et al.  Regulatory and study conditions for the determination of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs. , 2009, Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques.

[4]  S. Pocock Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials , 1977 .

[5]  Donald J. Schuirmann,et al.  Optimal adaptive sequential designs for crossover bioequivalence studies , 2015, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[6]  Walter W Hauck,et al.  Additional results for 'Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs'. , 2012, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[7]  L. Endrenyi,et al.  Sample sizes for designing bioequivalence studies for highly variable drugs. , 2011, Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques.

[8]  Helmut Schütz,et al.  Two-stage designs in bioequivalence trials , 2015, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

[9]  P. O'Brien,et al.  A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. , 1979, Biometrics.

[10]  A. Marshall,et al.  A literature review of applied adaptive design methodology within the field of oncology in randomised controlled trials and a proposed extension to the CONSORT guidelines , 2017, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[11]  W. Maurer,et al.  Controlling the type I error rate in two‐stage sequential adaptive designs when testing for average bioequivalence , 2018, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  Donald J. Schuirmann,et al.  Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs , 2008, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[13]  Q. Kang,et al.  Testing for bioequivalence of highly variable drugs from TR‐RT crossover designs with heterogeneous residual variances , 2017, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[14]  Kristian Thorlund,et al.  Key design considerations for adaptive clinical trials: a primer for clinicians , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[15]  Laszlo Endrenyi,et al.  Evaluation of the Bioequivalence of Highly-Variable Drugs and Drug Products , 2001, Pharmaceutical Research.

[16]  Daniel Alcaide,et al.  Consumer's risk in the EMA and FDA regulatory approaches for bioequivalence in highly variable drugs. , 2016, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  D. Labes,et al.  Inflation of Type I Error in the Evaluation of Scaled Average Bioequivalence, and a Method for its Control , 2016, Pharmaceutical Research.

[18]  Vladimir Dragalin,et al.  Implementation of an adaptive group sequential design in a bioequivalence study. , 2007, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[19]  Meinhard Kieser,et al.  Two‐stage designs for cross‐over bioequivalence trials , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  A. Fuglsang Controlling type I errors for two-stage bioequivalence study designs , 2011 .

[21]  B. Levin,et al.  Overview, hurdles, and future work in adaptive designs: perspectives from a National Institutes of Health-funded workshop , 2012, Clinical trials.

[22]  V. Karalis,et al.  On the statistical model of the two‐stage designs in bioequivalence assessment , 2014, The Journal of pharmacy and pharmacology.

[23]  Erik Cobo,et al.  Two-stage designs versus European scaled average designs in bioequivalence studies for highly variable drugs: Which to choose? , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  Panos Macheras,et al.  Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs: A Comparison of the Newly Proposed Regulatory Approaches by FDA and EMA , 2011, Pharmaceutical Research.