Replicate Designs for Average Bioequivalence [Design Issues]

posted by H_Rotter – Germany, 2006-01-27 13:15 (7452 d 09:48 ago) – Posting: # 67
Views: 10,767

Dear joyjac!

Whereas the standard 2×2×2 cross-over design (two treatments, two sequences, two periods) gives us the inter-subject- (between subjects) and intra-subject- (within subjects) variability, replicate designs (or sometimes called 'higher-order' or 'optimal' cross-over designs ) give us the additional information on the variability of treatments.

The most simple form is the two-sequence dual (two sequence, two treatment, three period) design [1] (sometimes called 'extra-reference' design):
S1: T R R
S2: R T R


A more sophisticiated design is the two-sequence, four-period design [2]:
S1: T R R T
S2: R T T R


Designs [1] and [2] are given in FDA's guidance; others (e.g. Balaam's design and the four-sequence, four-period design) are discussed in the literature, but to my knowledge rarely used.

Pros:Cons:So if you are dealing with an HVD, it may be a better option to go for a reference-scaled ABE in a conventional 2×2×2 design (Tothfalusi, L. and L. Endrenyi; Limits for the scaled average bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res 20(3), 382-389, 2003). You will find some slides at FDA's website. If you want to be protected against outliers caused by product failure of the reference, you may go for a replicate design (prefereably [1]).

regards
Hermann Rotter


Edit: Link corrected for FDA’s new site. [Helmut]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
142 visitors (0 registered, 142 guests [including 30 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:04 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses,
is in the eye of the beholder.    Laurence J. Peter

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5