This monkey business [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-06-14 00:12 (4763 d 08:07 ago) – Posting: # 10785
Views: 14,361

Hi John!

❝ ❝ I think that’s the crucial point. At a Pharmaceutical Science Advisory Committee Meeting FDA suggested a minimum of 36 subjects and was voted down (have to dig out the reference). From what I’ve heard at conferences they want 24 – but I was never able to find a reference.


❝ You mean this? Link


Well, this gives a hint where to search.

At the April 14, 2004 meeting of the Advisory Committee of Pharmaceutical Science (ACPS), different approaches were discussed, […] Most members favored a minimum sample size of 24.

This was the one where FDA was voted down. I think nothing was mentioned at the October 6, 2006 meeting (though not sure). I’m not aware of any official statement about a minimum sample size.

❝ Given the fact that the CV>30%, do you think that it's possible for anyone (I mean would anyone dare to) try and pass a RSABE study with n=12?


Well, if the study was planned for 80% power, CV <50%, and a GMR of 1 you would need 21. With a lot of drop-outs… In a full replicate (CV 30, GMR 1) you need only 16.

❝ It's risky enough to run a regular submission BE study with n=12 already...


Is it? With EMA I never had any problems.

❝ I will go check with my professor and see (Dr.Endrenyi) when I go have dinner with him later... :-)


Best regards! Tell him that we haven’t forgotten the α-inflation story (hint). Detlew just returned from his vacation.

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
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
396 visitors (0 registered, 396 guests [including 21 identified bots]).
Forum time: 08:19 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

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