It is shown how the two treatments in a 2 × 2 crossover trial can be compared with respect to both mean response level and within-subject response variability. Various exact statistical inferences are described, including tests, confidence intervals, and certain decision rules to determine whether the target parameters are within given intervals of interest. These inferences are valid even with few subjects, and no distributional assumption is required about the between-subject variability. The inferences are easily implemented using available statistical software.
JonesBKenwardMG. Design and Analysis of Cross-over Trials. London: Chapman and Hall; 1989.
2.
SennS.Cross-over Trials in Clinical Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1993.
3.
RatkowskyDAEvansMAAlldredgeJR. Cross-over Experiments: Design, Analysis and Application. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1993.
4.
ChowSCLiuJP. Design and Analysis of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1992.
5.
AndersonSHauckWW. Consideration of individual bioequivalence. J Pharmaco Biopharm.1990;18: 259–273.
6.
HauckWWAndersonS.Types of bioequivalence and related statistical considerations. Int J Clin Pharmaco Ther Toxicol.1992;30:181–187.
7.
AndersonS.Individual bioequivalence: a problem of switchability. Biopharmaceutical Report from the Biopharmaceutical Section of the American Statistical Association. 1993;2:1–11.
8.
ChowSCLiuJP. Recent statistical developments in bioequivalence trials—a review of the FDA guidance. Drug Inf J.1994;28:851–864.
9.
GuilbaudO.Exact inference about the within-subject variability in 2 × 2 crossover trials. J Am Stat Assoc.1993;88:939–946.
10.
SAS Institute Inc.SAS/STAT User's Guide Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC; 1989.
11.
FleissJL. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1986.
12.
LehmannEL. Testing Statistical Hypotheses. 2nd ed.New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1986.
HochbergYTamhaneAC. Multiple Comparison Procedures. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1987.
15.
SchuirmannDJ. On hypothesis testing to determine if the mean of a normal distribution is contained in a known interval (Abstract). Biometrics.1981;37:617.
16.
SchuirmannDJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmaco Biopharma.1987;15:657–680.
17.
WestlakeWJ. Bioequivalence testing —a need to rethink (Reader Reaction Response). Biometrics.1981;37:591–593.
18.
BergerRL. Multiparameter hypothesis testing and acceptance sampling. Technometrics.1982;24:295–300.
19.
SnikerisAC. A two-step method for assessing bioequivalence. Drug Inf J.1994;28:709–722.
20.
KochGG. The use of non-parametric methods in the statistical analysis of the two-period change-over design. Biometrics.1972;28:577–584.
