Group-by-Treatment Interaction Effects in Comparative Bioavailability Studies
Open Access
- 17 April 2024
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in The AAPS Journal
- Vol. 26 (3) , 1-8
Abstract
Comparative bioavailability studies often involve multiple groups of subjects for a variety of reasons, such as clinical capacity limitations. This raises questions about the validity of pooling data from these groups in the statistical analysis and whether a group-by-treatment interaction should be evaluated. We investigated the presence or absence of group-by-treatment interactions through both simulation techniques and a meta-study of well-controlled trials. Our findings reveal that the test falsely detects an interaction when no true group-by-treatment interaction exists. Conversely, when a true group-by-treatment interaction does exist, it often goes undetected. In our meta-study, the detected group-by-treatment interactions were observed at approximately the level of the test and, thus, can be considered false positives. Testing for a group-by-treatment interaction is both misleading and uninformative. It often falsely identifies an interaction when none exists and fails to detect a real one. This occurs because the test is performed between subjects in crossover designs, and studies are powered to compare treatments within subjects. This work demonstrates a lack of utility for including a group-by-treatment interaction in the model when assessing single-site comparative bioavailability studies, and the clinical trial study structure is divided into groups. Graphical AbstractKeywords
Funding Information
- Medical University of Vienna
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- An iterative method to protect the type I error rate in bioequivalence studies under two‐stage adaptive 2×2 crossover designsBiometrical Journal, 2020
- Applications of Adaptive Designs in Generic Drug DevelopmentClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2020
- Controlling the type I error rate in two‐stage sequential adaptive designs when testing for average bioequivalenceStatistics in Medicine, 2018
- The ASA Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and PurposeThe American Statistician, 2016
- Importancia de la potencia y la hipótesis en el valor pMedicina Clinica, 2016
- Testing bioequivalence for multiple formulations with power and sample size calculationsPharmaceutical Statistics, 2012
- Additional results for ‘Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs’Pharmaceutical Statistics, 2011
- Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designsPharmaceutical Statistics, 2007
- Carry‐over in cross‐over trials in bioequivalence: theoretical concerns and empirical evidencePharmaceutical Statistics, 2004
- The performance of the two‐stage analysis of two‐treatment, two‐period crossover trialsStatistics in Medicine, 1989