Crossover Studies with Continuous Variables: Power Analysis

  • Ton J. Cleophas
  • Aeilko H. Zwinderman
  • Toine F. Cleophas


Crossover studies with continuous variables are routinely used in clinical drug re-search: for example, no less than 22% of the double-blind placebo-controlled hypertension trials in 1993 were accordingly designed.1 A major advantage of the crossover design is that it eliminates between-subject variability of symptoms. However, problems include the occurrence of carryover effect, sometimes wrongly called treatment-by-period interaction (see also chapter 17): if the effect of the first period carries on into the next one, then it may influence the response to the latter period. Second, the possibility of time effects due to external factors such as the change of the seasons has to be taken into account in lengthy crossover studies. Third, negative correlations between drug response, although recently recognized in clinical pharmacology, is an important possibility not considered in the design and analysis of clinical trials so far. Many crossover studies may have a positive correlation-between-drug-response, not only because treatments in a given comparison are frequently from the same class of drugs, but also because one subject is used for comparisons of two treatments. Still, in treatment comparisons of completely different treatments patients may fall into different populations, those who respond better to the test-treatment and those who do so to the reference-treatment. This phenomenon has already lead to treatment protocols based on individualized rather than stepped care.2 Power analyses for crossover studies with continuous variables so far only accounted for the possibility of approximately zero levels of correlations.3–8 While considering different levels of correlation, we recently demonstrated9 that the crossover design with binary variables is a powerful means of determining the efficacy of new drugs in spite of such factors as carryover effects. Crossover trials with continuous variables, however, have not yet been similarly studied.


Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Time Effect Crossover Study Carryover Effect Crossover Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Niemeyer MG, Zwinderman AH, Cleophas TJ, De Vogel EM. Crossover studies are a better format for comparing equivalent treatments than parallel-group studies. In: Kuhlmann J, Mrozikiewicz A, eds, What should a clinical pharmacologist know to start a clinical trial (phase I and II). Munich, Germany, Zuckschwerdt Verlag, 1998, pp 40–48.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scheffé H. Mixed models. In: Scheffé H, ed, The analysis of variance. New York, Wiley & Sons, 1959, pp 261–291.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cleophas TJ. Crossover studies: a modified analysis with more power. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 53: 515–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Willan AR, Pater JL. Carryover and the two-period crossover clinical trial. Biometrics 1986; 42: 593–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freeman PR. The performance of the two-stage analysis of two-treatment, two-period crossover trials. Stat Med 1989; 8: 1421–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fleiss JA. A critique of recent research on the two-treatment crossover design. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 237–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Senn S. The AB/BA crossover: past, present and future. Stat Methods Med Res 1994; 3: 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grieve AP. Bayesian analyses of two-treatment crossover studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1994; 3: 407–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cleophas TJ, Van Lier HH. Clinical trials with binary responses: power analyses. J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 36: 198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nies AS, Spielberg SP. Individualization of drug therapy. In: Hardman JL et al., eds, Goodman and Gilman’s Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, pp 43–63.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grizzle JE. The two-period change-over design and its use in clinical trials. Biometrics 1965; 22: 469–480.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    SPSS 8 for Windows 95 and 98, SPSS Benelux, Gorinchem, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hays WL. Statistics. Fort Worth, TX, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 4th edition, 1988.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ton J. Cleophas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Aeilko H. Zwinderman
    • 3
  • Toine F. Cleophas
    • 4
  1. 1.European Interuniversity College of Pharmaceutical Medicine LyonFrance
  2. 2.Department MedicineAlbert Schweitzer HospitalDordrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department Biostatistics and EpidemiologyAcademic Medical Center AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Technical UniversityDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations