Sample Size for Multiple Hypothesis Testing in Biosimilar Development

References

• Bauer, P. (1989), “Sequential Tests of Hypotheses in Consecutive Trials,” Biometrical Journal, 31, 663–676.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (1991), “Multiple Testing in Clinical Trials,” Statistics in Medicine, 10, 871–890.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, R. L., and Hsu, J. C. (1996), “Bioequivalence Trials, Intersection-Union Tests and Equivalence Confidence Sets,” Statistical Science, 11, 283–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blevins, T., Dahl, D., Rosenstock, J., Ilag, L., Huster, W., Zielonka, J., Pollom, R., and Prince, M. (2015), “Efficacy and Safety of LY2963016 Insulin Glargine Compared With Insulin Glargine (Lantus®) in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes in a Randomized Controlled Trial: The ELEMENT 1 Study,” Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 17, 726–733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bretz, F., Posch, M., Glimm, E., Klinglmueller, F., Maurer, W., and Rohmeyer, K. (2011), “Graphical Approaches for Multiple Comparison Procedures Using Weighted Bonferroni, Simes, or Parametric Tests,” Biometrical Journal, 53, 894–913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullen, J. A., and Obuchowski, N. A. (2017), “Correcting for Multiple Testing During Diagnostic Accuracy Studies,” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 9, 243–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burdick, R. K., Thomas, N., and Cheng, A. (2017), “Statistical Considerations in Demonstrating CMC Analytical Similarity for a Biosimilar Product,” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CHMP (2008), “Zarzio: EPAR - Public Assessment Report,” available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/000917/WC500046528.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2009), “Abasria: EPAR - Public Assessment Report,” available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/002835/WC500175383.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2013), “Grastofil: EPAR - Public Assessment Report,” available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/002150/WC500154066.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2014), “Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-Derived Proteins as Active Substance: Non-Clinical and Clinical Issues,” available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/01/WC500180219.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2017), “Draft Reflection Paper on Statistical Methodology for the Comparative Assessment of Quality Attributes in Drug Development,” available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2017/03/WC500224995.pdf
   Google Scholar
• DerSimonian, R., and Laird, N. (1986), “Meta-Analysis in Clinical Trials,” Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 177–188.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dunnett, C. W. (1955), “A Multiple Comparison Procedure for Comparing Several Treatments with a Control,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 50, 1096–1121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EMA (2017), “EPAR database,” available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/landing/epar_search.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124
   Google Scholar
• FDA (2015), “Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product,” available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/DrugsGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM291128.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (2015), “Biological Patents Expiries,” available at http://www.gabionline.net/Biosimilars/General/Biologicals-patent-expiries
   Google Scholar
• Holzmann, J., Balser, S., and Windisch, J. (2016), “Totality of the Evidence at Work: The First U.S. Biosimilar,” Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, 16, 137–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, G., and Hoffmann, T. (1988), “Controlled Uncertainty,” in Multiple Hypothesenprüfung/Multiple Hypotheses Testing, New York: Springer, pp. 154–161.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, C.-Y., and Liu, J.-P. (2013), “An Approximate Approach to Sampling Size Determination for the Equivalence Hypothesis,” Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 23, 526–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jilma, B., Jagiello-Gruszfeld, A., Tomczak, P., Gadgil, H., Orlik, G., Desai, K., Catalano, T., and Dowd, J. (2014), “Demonstration of Clinical Comparability of the Biosimilar Filgrastim to Neupogen, in Terms of Safety and Efficacy, in Healthy Volunteers and Patients Receiving Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy,” European Oncology & Haematology, 10, 107–115.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, B., and Kenward, M. G. (2015), Design and Analysis of Cross-Over Trials (3th ed.), Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kong, L., Kohberger, R. C., and Koch, G. G. (2004), “Type I Error and Power in Noninferiority/Equivalence Trials With Correlated Multiple Endpoints: An Example From Vaccine Development,” Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 14, 893–907.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lehmann, E., and Romano, J. (2005), “Generalizations of the Familywise Error Rate,” The Annals of Statistics, 33, 1138–1154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubenau, H., Bias, P., Maly, A.-K., Siegler, K., and Mehltretter, K. (2009), “Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Profile of New Biosimilar Filgrastim XM02 Equivalent to Marketed Filgrastim Neupogen,” BioDrugs, 23, 43–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mielke, J., Jilma, B., Koenig, F., and Jones, B. (2016), “Clinical Trials for Authorized Biosimilars in the European Union: A Systematic Review,” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 82, 1444–1457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, S. (2013), “The 250 Billion Potential of Biosimilars,” Express Scripts. Available at http://lab.express-scripts.com/lab/insights/industry-updates/the-$250-billion-potential-of-biosimilars
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, A., Fletcher, C., Atkinson, G., Channon, E., Douiri, A., Jaki, T., Maca, J., Morgan, D., Roger, J. H., and Terrill, P. (2013), “Multiplicity: Discussion Points From the Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry Multiplicity Expert Group,” Pharmaceutical Statistics, 12, 255–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quan, H., Bolognese, J., and Yuan, W. (2001), “Assessment of Equivalence on Multiple Endpoints,” Statistics in Medicine, 20, 3159–3173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2015), R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Ristl, R., Frommlet, F., Koch, A., and Posch, M. (2016), “Fallback Tests for Co-Primary Endpoints,” Statistics in Medicine, 35, 2669–2686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenstock, J., Hollander, P., Bhargava, A., Ilag, L., Pollom, R., Zielonka, J., Huster, W., and Prince, M. (2015), “Similar Efficacy and Safety of LY2963016 Insulin Glargine and Insulin Glargine (Lantus®) in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Who Were Insulin-naïve or Previously Treated With Insulin Glargine: A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial (the ELEMENT 2 Study),” Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 17, 734–741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rüger, B. (1978), “Das Maximale Signifikanzniveau des Tests:” Lehne H0 ab, Wenn k Unter n Gegebenen Tests zur Ablehnung führen,” Metrika, 25, 171–178.
   Google Scholar
• Schuirmann, D. (1987), “A Comparison of the Two One-Sided Tests Procedure and the Power Approach for Assessing the Equivalence of Average Bioavailability,” Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, 15, 657–680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seldrup, J. (2011), “Regulatory Advice and Drug Development–A Case Study in Negotiating With Regulators,” Statistics in Medicine, 30, 1628–1635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senn, S., and Bretz, F. (2007), “Power and Sample Size When Multiple Endpoints are Considered,” Pharmaceutical Statistics, 6, 161–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varga, Z., Tsang, Y. C., and Singer, J. (2017), “A Simple Procedure to Estimate the Optimal Sample Size in Case of Conjunctive Coprimary Endpoints,” Biometrical Journal, 59, 626–635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Victor, N. (1982), “Exploratory Data Analysis and Clinical Research,” Methods of Information in Medicine, 21, 53–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiens, B. L., and Dmitrienko, A. (2010), “On Selecting a Multiple Comparison Procedure for Analysis of a Clinical Trial: Fallback, Fixed Sequence, and Related Procedures,” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 2, 22–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie, C. (2012), “Weighted Multiple Testing Correction for Correlated Tests,” Statistics in Medicine, 31, 341–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye, Y., and Yao, B. (2012), “Demonstrating Biosimilarity via Equivalence in Clinical Trials,” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 4, 264–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng, C., Wang, J., and Zhao, L. (2012), “Testing Bioequivalence for Multiple Formulations With Power and Sample Size Calculations,” Pharmaceutical Statistics, 11, 334–341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, H. (2017), “Sample Size Calculation for Comparing Two Poisson or Negative Binomial Rates in Noninferiority or Equivalence Trials,” Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 9, 107–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar