is something fishy in case 2? [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2008-11-29 16:42 (6407 d 07:32 ago) – Posting: # 2835
Views: 8,882

Dea Dr Garg,

I am not sure I follow you completely regarding case 2:

❝ Case-2: I have done another pilot study with parallel design for a very long half-life drug B and I have calculated the sample size for the pivotal study using SAS considering total CV of 0.16 and observed %T/R ratio of 112.08. The sample size calculated is 27 for two-way cross-over study as programmed. In that case can I do the pivotal parallel study with at least double the number of subjects i.e. 54?


Not considering the last sentence there, I get the impression that you first did a parallel pilot which gave you a CV and a T/R estimate, which you then used to power a crossover trial?
This does not sound right. As indicated in previous question and further elaborated on by DLabes, the CV you get in a parallel study is not the intra-CV you need for powering the crossover trial.
As a rule of thumb a parallel pilot study will give you info you can use to plan another parallel study; a crossover pilot will give you what you need to power another crossover trial (or optionally even a parallel one).

Best regards
EM.

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,571 registered users;
142 visitors (0 registered, 142 guests [including 18 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:15 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The idea is to try and give all the information to help others
to judge the value of your contribution;
not just the information that leads to judgment
in one particular direction or another.    Richard Feynman

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