In 2008, this group published a paper on approaches for two-stage crossover bioequivalence (BE) studies that allowed for the reestimation of the second-stage sample size based on the variance estimated from the first-stage results. The sequential methods considered used an assumed GMR of 0.95 as part of the method for determining power and sample size. This note adds results for an assumed GMR = 0.90. Two of the methods recommended for GMR = 0.95 in the earlier paper have some unacceptable increases in Type I error rate when the GMR is changed to 0.90. If a sponsor wants to assume 0.90 for the GMR, Method D is recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Montague et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: