Sequential designs (history and future) [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2010-03-29 16:19 (5917 d 11:03 ago) – Posting: # 4985
Views: 16,058

Dear bears!

❝ So, it sounds like that the sequential designs (Method C or D suggested by Potvin D, et al., 2008) have been widely acceptable for regulatory agents (FDA/EMA/Japan/etc.). However, I don't quite remember that there is any regulation mentioned the sequential designs for ABE study. Am I wrong about this?


Well, in Canada and Japan naïve pooling was acceptable for many years (in Canada for almost the last 20 years!). When the sample size turned out to be too small to demonstrate BE, additional subjects could be included – no correction of the alpha-level… Obviously the patient’s risk may be >0.05, but these countries’ inhabitants are proverbial for their endurance (Lumberjacks. Samurais!).
Sequential designs were never part of the official guidelines in the US and the EU. However, the introduction of Potvin’s paper states that sequential design studies were accepted by the FDA in the past. The recent EU-GL allows for a sequential design; the actual method is not stated (but the description matches Potvin’s). Canada in their 2009 draft prefer Gould’s (1995) method.
WHO (2006) allows add-ons; for other countries please search the Guidelines.

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
23,653 posts in 4,991 threads, 1,570 registered users;
157 visitors (0 registered, 157 guests [including 50 identified bots]).
Forum time: 03:22 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

There are no dangerous thoughts;
thinking itself is dangerous.    Hannah Arendt

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