Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38114931›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023

A Bayesian approach to pilot-pivotal trials for bioequivalence assessment.

Duo Lv, Michael J Grayling, Xinyue Zhang, Qingwei Zhao, Haiyan Zheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Dose-Response and Clinical Equivalence of Semaglutide and Tirzepatide for Weight Loss in Type 2 Diabetes: A Model-Based Analysis.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Duo LvDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Michael J GraylingPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Xinyue ZhangPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Qingwei ZhaoDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Haiyan ZhengDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, UK. hz2075@bath.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK RCCPDF\100008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo demonstrate bioequivalence between two drug formulations, a pilot trial is often conducted prior to a pivotal trial to assess feasibility and gain preliminary information about the treatment effect. Due to the limited sample size, it is not recommended to perform significance tests at the conventional 5% level using pilot data to determine if a pivotal trial should take place. Whilst some authors suggest to relax the significance level, a Bayesian framework provides an alternative for informing the decision-making. Moreover, a Bayesian approach also readily permits possible incorporation of pilot data in priors for the parameters that underpin the pivotal trial.

methodsWe consider two-sequence, two-period crossover designs that compare test (T) and reference (R) treatments. We propose a robust Bayesian hierarchical model, embedded with a scaling factor, to elicit a Go/No-Go decision using predictive probabilities. Following a Go decision, the final analysis to formally establish bioequivalence can leverage both the pilot and pivotal trial data jointly. A simulation study is performed to evaluate trial operating characteristics.

resultsCompared with conventional procedures, our proposed method improves the decision-making to correctly allocate a Go decision in scenarios of bioequivalence. By choosing an appropriate threshold, the probability of correctly (incorrectly) making a No-Go (Go) decision can be ensured at a desired target level. Using both pilot and pivotal trial data in the final analysis can result in a higher chance of declaring bioequivalence. The false positive rate can be maintained in situations when T and R are not bioequivalent.

conclusionsThe proposed methodology is novel and effective in different stages of bioequivalence assessment. It can greatly enhance the decision-making process in bioequivalence trials, particularly in situations with a small sample size.

Indexed as

Research DesignBayes TheoremClinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationHumansSample SizeTherapeutic EquivalencyBioequivalenceCrossover designPilot dataRobustness

Identifiers

PMID38114931
PMCPMC10729540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.