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.
Keywords: Monte-Carlo simulations; average bioequivalence; group-by-treatment interaction; regulatory guidelines.
© 2024. The Author(s).