unique_one
☆    

India,
2015-10-17 11:33
(3085 d 08:42 ago)

Posting: # 15569
Views: 6,553
 

 2 way fasting and 3 way fed pilot results analysis [Study As­sess­ment]

Dear All,

We conducted a fasting (2-way crossover) and fed (3 way reference replicate scaled average BE) pilot studies for one of the molecules.

N=16 for fasting pilot and N=18 for fed pilot.

The results are as below:

Fasting Pilot:

Parameter     Ratios  CI 90_L  CI 90_U  Power   IS CV (%)
Ln(Cmax)      98.58    77.47   128.41   0.4194   43.13
Ln(AUC last)  93.86    82.05   110.32   0.8307   22.51
Ln(AUC INF)   89.75    72.47   111.56   0.5223   33.65


Fed pilot:

Parameter  SwR   Reference ISCV(%)
Cmax      0.333      33.13%
AUCt      0.244      26.32%
AUCi      0.325      35.48%

Parameter  T/R ratio  theta  95% upper CI
Cmax          0.86     0.79     0.044
AUCi          0.82     0.79     0.143

Parameter RLSM  Test LSM  Ref GM    Test GM    T/R        90% CI       power
AUCt      8.350   8.220   4712.223  4170.343  87.23%  74.25%-106.25%    0.69


Below are the considerations:
  1. As per the literature, this molecule has a food effect and food decreases bioavailability of Cmax and AUC, by approximately 40% - 45% and 20% - 23%, respectively.

  2. This molecule shows high variablity when administered with food and therefore a reference replicate pilot study was planned.
Queries:
  1. Looking to the above results, it is seen that the Test product is behaving fast in comparison to the Reference in fasting pilot study. However in contradiction, the test product is behaving slow in comparison to the reference in fed pilot study.

    Do we need to do any change in the formulation at this point? Because any change (fastening/slowing) will effect both fasting and fed pivotal studies.

  2. What would be the sample size recommended for fasting 2 way crossover pivotal study and pivotal fed reference replicate scaled average BE study?

  3. As per my dissolution media results, the product is a bit slower in one of the dissolution media. Any correlation from this aspect?

  4. What should be the best strategy to plan the pivotal studies for above molecule with respect to the current formulation and process and the pivotal studies design so as to get good results in the pivotal studies?

Thanks everyone in Advance.
Unique_One.


Edit: Category changed. Why are you shouting as us? All-capitals ⇒ lowercase. Use series of blanks enclosed in BBCodes instead of tabs[Helmut]
Mahmoud
★    

Jordan,
2015-11-22 10:51
(3049 d 08:24 ago)

(edited by Ohlbe on 2015-11-22 23:09)
@ unique_one
Posting: # 15651
Views: 4,517
 

 2 way fasting and 3 way fed pilot results analysis

Dear Sir

1. For the pilot fasting study based on N=18. The CV in cmax is >30% then we can use 3 way reference replicate scaled with N=36 or we can use two -stage 2x2 with N=50

2. For fed study: The problem in GMR is about 87%. So in this case I recommened to genrate your study using the full replicate scaled with N=36

Dr.Mahmoud Abdel Mohsen

statistician
Amman-Jordan
[email protected]


Edit: Full quote removed. Please delete everything from the text of the original poster which is not necessary in understanding your answer; see also this post! [Ohlbe]
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2015-11-23 15:01
(3048 d 04:13 ago)

@ Mahmoud
Posting: # 15654
Views: 4,486
 

 Where do these numbers come from?

Hi Mahmoud,

Dear Sir

       Are you sure that Unique_One is male?


❝ 1. For the pilot fating study based on N=18.


Nope. n=16. :cool:

❝ The CV in cmax is >30% then we can use 3 way reference replicate scaled with N=36


Why 36? For FDA’s RSABE, CV 43.13%, T/R 0.90 (risky to assume a “better” one – even if the pilot suggests so), 80% power:

    design    n  power 
  RTRT|TRTR  18 0.82595
    RTR|TRT  28 0.83176
RRT|RTR|TRR  24 0.81442

The FDA requires a minimum sample size of 24, which will give you a power of 0.92498 if all subjects in the 4-period full replicate complete the study.

❝ or we can use two -stage 2x2 with N=50


How did you derive this number? A T/R of 0.9 calls for Montague’s “Method D” (an adjusted α of 0.028). Reference-scaling is not possible in TSDs. One can start the first stage with any number of sub­jects. A reasonable n1 is ~¾ of the fixed sample design’s n (with α 0.05: 154). With n1 116 power in the first stage is 59.8%, the chance to proceed to the second stage is 39.7%, and overall power is 82.6%. The expected average total sample size is 147. Percentiles of N:

min   5%  25%  med  75%  95%  max
116  116  116  116  184  222  310

If you start with only 50 subjects, power in the first stage will be just 28.4%, the chance to proceed to #2 is 71.6%, whereas overall power is similar with 81.4%. Generally you can expect higher sample sizes. Average 153 and:

min   5%  25%  med  75%  95%  max
 50   50   50  172  206  252  390

Not a good idea.

❝ 2. For fed study: The problem in GMR is about 87%. So in this case I recommened to genrate your study using the full replicate scaled with N=36


Again: Why 36? Most critical is AUCi with T/R 0.82 () and CV 35.48%. If we believe that these values are true (ha-ha), we would need 146 subjects in a 4-period full replicate. The 36 you suggested would give Unique_One a power of 45.7%. That’s less than the 48.6% winning chance one could expect for betting rouge/noir, pair/impair, manque/passe in roulette. Bad advice.
BTW, the high number is mainly caused by the [0.80–1.25] constraint on the PE. Without (theoretically) we would need 80 subjects.

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
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2015-11-23 17:57
(3048 d 01:18 ago)

@ unique_one
Posting: # 15656
Views: 4,398
 

 Numbers?

Hi Unique_One,

❝ N=16 for fasting pilot…

Parameter     Ratios  CI 90_L  CI 90_U  Power   IS CV (%)

Ln(Cmax)      98.58    77.47   128.41   0.4194   43.13

Ln(AUC last)  93.86    82.05   110.32   0.8307   22.51

Ln(AUC INF)   89.75    72.47   111.56   0.5223   33.65


I fail to understand your numbers. The PE should be \(\sqrt{CL_{lower} \times CL_{upper}}\), right? Based on the CIs I got:

               PE    CV%   “power”
ln(Cmax)     99.74  42.30  0.0472
ln(AUClast)  95.14  24.11  0.5496
ln(AUCinf)   89.92  35.70  0.0997

Strange. Bizarre rounding? BTW, the useless “power” is completely wrong. Shall I say as usual? Is there an Indian con­spiracy to apply a false and outdated method (see this post)? There is a rule of thumb for T/R 0.95 and ≥80% power: n=20 (CV 20%) and n=40 (CV 30%). So why would one expect 83% power for AUClast for n=16? With your reported numbers you would need 26.

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
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
92 visitors (0 registered, 92 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:15 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