T/R 110% [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-11-30 15:02 (4234 d 20:53 ago) – Posting: # 11992
Views: 8,354

Hi Kumar,

❝ If in my earlier studies I am getting T/R ratio= 110% means >5% difference then for planning another study for another market should I go with the T/R=110% or 95% for sample size estimation.


The former. Although with another reference product the ratio might be better, without a pilot study I would suggest a conservative approach.

❝ As per EMA guideline (2010) "batches should not differ more than 5%" so taking 10% difference in T/R ratio is considerable.


Yes, why not? The ≤5% refer to measured contents, not the assumed in vivo ratio.

❝ Also if I am taking the T/R ratio=110% I am getting sample size around 50 (without dropout) …


Correct (given the CV of 24.3%).

❝ … but many studies I found for this drug is around 40 even …


Some drug, but different formulations.

❝ … our earlier study had 42.

❝ LnCmax ratio=110.3 (90%CI- 101.06-120.54) CV=24.3.


Passed by luck. “Power” was 76%.

❝ then in that case if am exceeding sample size will it considered as a forced bioequivalence?


Don’t think so – unless you go to Denmark* (100% not included in CI).



Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,427 posts in 4,929 threads, 1,684 registered users;
32 visitors (0 registered, 32 guests [including 17 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:56 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

In the field of observation,
chance favors only the mind that is prepared.    Louis Pasteur

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