The statistical test of the traditional hypothesis of no treatment effect is commonly used in toxicological experiments. Failing to reject the hypothesis often leads to the conclusion of evidence in favor of safety. The major drawback of this indirect approach is the fact that what is controlled by a prespecified level is the probability of erroneously concluding hazard (producer risk). The primary concern of safety assessment, however, is the control of the consumer risk, that is, limiting the probability of erroneously concluding safety. In order to restrict this risk, safety has to be formulated as the alternative and hazard, that is, the opposite, has to be formulated as the hypothesis.
ChanterDOTuckMGCoombsDW. The chances of false negative results in conventional toxicology studies with rats. Toxicol.1987;43:65–74.
2.
Food and Drug Administration.Toxicological principles for the safety assessment of direct food additives and color additives used in food. Draft.Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; 1993.
3.
BrossID. Why proof of safety is much more difficult than proof of hazard. Biometrics.1985;41:785–793.
4.
MillardSP. Proof of safety vs. proof of hazard. Biometrics.1987;43:719–725.
5.
HollandBOrdoukhaniNK. Balancing type I and type II error probabilities: further comments on proof of safety vs. proof of hazard. Comm Statist-Theory Meth.1990;19:3557–3570.
6.
EricksonWPMcDonaldLL. Tests for bioequivalence of control media and test media in studies of toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem.1995;14:1247–1256.
7.
HauschkeD. Testprinzipien bei Safety-Studien in der Toxikologie. In TrampischHJLangeS, Hrsg. Medizinische Forschung-Ärztliches Handeln.München: MMV Medizin Verlag; 1995:104–107.
8.
BergerRL. Multiparameter hypothesis testing and acceptance sampling. Technometrics.1982;24:295–300.
9.
PeaceKE. Design and analysis considerations for safety data, particularly adverse events. In GilbertGS, ed. Drug safety assessment in clinical trials.NY: Marcel Dekker, 1993:305–316.
10.
PhillipsKF. Power of the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm.1990; 18:137–144.
11.
DilettiEHauschkeDSteinijansVW. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol.1991;29:1–8.
12.
LiuJ-PChowS-C. Sample size determination for the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm.1992;20:101–104.
13.
HauschkeDSteinijansVWDilettiEBurkeM. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment using a multiplicative model. J Pharmacokin Biopharm.1992;20:557–561.
14.
FisherRA. The design of experiments.London: Oliver and Boyd; 1935.
