1. Group-by-treatment interaction effects in comparative bioavailability studies
- Author
-
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Departament d'Estadística i Investigació Operativa, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. GRBIO - Grup de Recerca en Bioestadística i Bioinformàtica, Schütz, Helmut, Burger, Divan Aristo, Cobo Valeri, Erik, Dubins, David D., Farkás, Tibor, Labes, Detlew, Lang, Benjamin, Ocaña Rebull, Jordi, Ring, Arne, Shitova, Anastasia, Stus, Volodymyr, Tomashevskiy, Michael, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Departament d'Estadística i Investigació Operativa, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. GRBIO - Grup de Recerca en Bioestadística i Bioinformàtica, Schütz, Helmut, Burger, Divan Aristo, Cobo Valeri, Erik, Dubins, David D., Farkás, Tibor, Labes, Detlew, Lang, Benjamin, Ocaña Rebull, Jordi, Ring, Arne, Shitova, Anastasia, Stus, Volodymyr, and Tomashevskiy, Michael
- Abstract
The version of record of this article, first published in AAPS journal, is available online at Publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1208/s12248-024-00921-x, 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., Peer Reviewed, Postprint (published version)
- Published
- 2024