Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  2018-07-23 00:32 CEST (UTC+2h)
Louis52
Junior

2018-04-18 20:18

Posting: # 18698
Views: 891
 

 BE parallel studies with more than 2 arms [Power / Sample Size]

Hello,

Did anybody encounter a situation with a BE study with more than 2 arms (i.e. Ref 1, Ref 2, and Test)? I understand it might sound weird but it can be a real case. Is there any adjustment for the sample size calculation in this instance? Any other adjustments, like for the power, etc?

Thanks


Edit: Category changed; see also this post #1. [Helmut]
ElMaestro
Hero

Denmark,
2018-04-18 20:55

@ Louis52
Posting: # 18699
Views: 716
 

 BE parallel studies with more than 2 arms

Hi Louis,

» Did anybody encounter a situation with a BE study with more than 2 arms (i.e. Ref 1, Ref 2, and Test)? I understand it might sound weird but it can be a real case. Is there any adjustment for the sample size calculation in this instance? Any other adjustments, like for the power, etc?

This is a fairly common scenario.
You can dimension it conservatively by assuming the worst metric and its CV.
Multiplicity adjustment could be very relevant in this case (you want BE for test against both refs), but there is no obvious way to do it because things can be somewhat correlated. If you look at them separately and assume no correlation then you can easily power both tests to 90% and expect about an 80% chance of success if your assumptions are correct. And so forth. Note also for EU you are often removing the irrelevant data serially, but you aren't doing so for the US analysis. I am not aware of anyone having ever qualified a healthy way to deal with this aspect at the sample size stage (but I am aware of people less closely connected to real life having done -or should I say 'tried'- such a thing).
How does it look at your end, is the between-unit CV (total) for the potencies different between the two refs?

if (3) 4

Best regards,
ElMaestro

"(...) targeted cancer therapies will benefit fewer than 2 percent of the cancer patients they’re aimed at. That reality is often lost on consumers, who are being fed a steady diet of winning anecdotes about miracle cures." New York Times (ed.), June 9, 2018.
Louis52
Junior

2018-04-23 21:20

@ ElMaestro
Posting: # 18724
Views: 549
 

 BE parallel studies with more than 2 arms

Probably the most conservative is the one to use. Indeed, no big difference between the CVs.
Thanks!
Back to the forum Activity
 Thread view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
18,547 posts in 3,941 threads, 1,190 registered users;
online 14 (0 registered, 14 guests [including 14 identified bots]).

[The] impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase:
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.    Carl Sagan

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5 RSS Feed