Sample size for equivalence trials: a case study from a vaccine lot consistency trial

For some trials, simple but subtle assumptions can have a profound impact on the size of the trial. A case in point is a vaccine lot consistency (or equivalence) trial. Standard sample size formulas used for designing lot consistency trials rely on only one component of variation, namely, the variation in antibody titers within lots. The other component, the variation in the means of titers between lots, is assumed to be equal to zero. In reality, some amount of variation between lots, however small, will be present even under the best manufacturing practices. Using data from a published lot consistency trial, we demonstrate that when the between-lot variation is only 0.5 per cent of the total variation, the increase in the sample size is nearly 300 per cent when compared with the size assuming that the lots are identical. The increase in the sample size is so pronounced that in order to maintain power one is led to consider a less stringent criterion for demonstration of lot consistency. The appropriate sample size formula that is a function of both components of variation is provided. We also discuss the increase in the sample size due to correlated comparisons arising from three pairs of lots as a function of the between-lot variance.

Comment in

Kohberger RC. Kohberger RC. Stat Med. 2009 Jan 15;28(1):177-8, author reply 178-9. doi: 10.1002/sim.3443. Stat Med. 2009. PMID: 18937271 No abstract available.

Sun X, Li X, Chen J. Sun X, et al. Stat Med. 2012 Jul 10;31(15):1652-3; author reply 1654. doi: 10.1002/sim.4408. Stat Med. 2012. PMID: 22711252 No abstract available.

Similar articles

Kohberger RC. Kohberger RC. Stat Med. 2009 Jan 15;28(1):177-8, author reply 178-9. doi: 10.1002/sim.3443. Stat Med. 2009. PMID: 18937271 No abstract available.

Sun X, Li X, Chen J. Sun X, et al. Stat Med. 2012 Jul 10;31(15):1652-3; author reply 1654. doi: 10.1002/sim.4408. Stat Med. 2012. PMID: 22711252 No abstract available.

Lachenbruch PA, Rida W, Kou J. Lachenbruch PA, et al. J Biopharm Stat. 2004 May;14(2):275-90. doi: 10.1081/BIP-120037179. J Biopharm Stat. 2004. PMID: 15206526

Wang WW, Mehrotra DV, Chan IS, Heyse JF. Wang WW, et al. J Biopharm Stat. 2006;16(4):429-41. doi: 10.1080/10543400600719251. J Biopharm Stat. 2006. PMID: 16892905 Review.

Korbutt GS. Korbutt GS. Xenotransplantation. 2009 Jul-Aug;16(4):223-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3089.2009.00542.x. Xenotransplantation. 2009. PMID: 19799762

Cited by

Luxembourg A, Moreira ED Jr, Samakoses R, Kim KH, Sun X, Maansson R, Moeller E, Christiano S, Chen J. Luxembourg A, et al. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(6):1306-12. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1009819. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015. PMID: 26086587 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.

Chen YJ, Meng FY, Mao Q, Li JX, Wang H, Liang ZL, Zhang YT, Gao F, Chen QH, Hu Y, Ge ZJ, Yao X, Guo HJ, Zhu FC, Li XL. Chen YJ, et al. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(5):1366-72. doi: 10.4161/hv.28397. Epub 2014 Mar 14. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014. PMID: 24633366 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.

MeSH terms

Clinical Trials as Topic / methods*