scorp2011
☆    

India,
2015-06-15 14:36
(3209 d 09:15 ago)

Posting: # 14957
Views: 7,195
 

 SAS code for 3-period, partial-replicated crossover study [RSABE / ABEL]

We have two Test formulations (T1 and T2) and One single Reference formulation (R). We want to test for bioequivalence of each test formulation against the reference formulation i.e. T1 vs. R and T2 vs. R. The test drug is a candidate of "NTI" Please suggest me the whether we can analyze the study as per the SAS code (after adequately modifying the same) provided by the USFDA in Warfarin OGD guidance.
Regards
Sonu
d_labes
★★★

Berlin, Germany,
2015-06-15 15:24
(3209 d 08:27 ago)

@ scorp2011
Posting: # 14958
Views: 6,258
 

 SAS code for 3-period, partial-replicated crossover study

Dear Sonu,

as far as I could see your study design is not a partial replicate design.
There is no replication (i.e. more than one application of the reference within each subject) if you use three periods and will apply each treatment on each subject.

If I'm correct in describing your design you can not apply scaled ABE for NTID's.

Or do I miss some thing?

Regards,

Detlew
MGR
★    

India,
2015-06-15 15:34
(3209 d 08:17 ago)

@ d_labes
Posting: # 14959
Views: 6,355
 

 SAS code for 3-period, partial-replicated crossover study

Hi All,

One of my sponsor asked to do a Partial replicate study, in which there are two tests and one reference. What will be the possible sequences used in the study?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
MGR
ElMaestro
★★★

Denmark,
2015-06-15 15:46
(3209 d 08:05 ago)

@ MGR
Posting: # 14960
Views: 6,201
 

 SAS code for 3-period, partial-replicated cross­over study

Hi MGR,

❝ One of my sponsor asked to do a Partial replicate study, in which there are two tests and one reference. What will be the possible sequences used in the study?


It would be permutations of T1T2RR.
It does not sound right to me, intuition and such, but it is definitely possible. 4 periods.

If you insist on 3 periods, I wonder if you could do Perm(RRT1) and Perm(RRT2). Three periods, 6 sequences.... rubbish? Some subjects would not be exposed to both Tests I guess. Naw, this sounds too weird too for my taste buds.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
d_labes
★★★

Berlin, Germany,
2015-06-15 16:50
(3209 d 07:01 ago)

@ ElMaestro
Posting: # 14961
Views: 6,190
 

 Partial-replicated crossover study with 2 Tests

Dear ElMaestro, dear MGR!

Both of your described designs are of course possible ones.
But both are not usable if you think in terms of scaled ABE for NTID's as described in the Warfarine guidance. The algo described there relies on a full replicate design because you have to evaluate the (1 - α)100% CI for σwT/σwR, the ratio of sd's of intra-subject variabilities of Test and Reference.

For "normal" scaled ABE aimed to a FDA submission there are some (IMHO) unresolved issues. Just to name some:
  • How to estimate the sample size for scaled ABE for these designs?
  • How exactly to adapt the algorithm described in the FDA Progesterone guidance to both suggested designs?
  • Pairwise evaluation like the EMA suggestion for 3×3 or 4×4 cross-over designs doesn't really help since for the RR evaluation all data have to be used if such designs should have any advantage over 2 separate studies.
I personally wouldn't go with any design without knowledge about how to plan and how to evaluate!

Regards,

Detlew
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
91 visitors (0 registered, 91 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:51 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Nothing shows a lack of mathematical education more
than an overly precise calculation.    Carl Friedrich Gauß

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