Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Hi ElMaestro,

very interesting. From the wording of the 2-period study I assume that the original analysis was performed according to “Method C”. I have seen similar requests by the MEB (i.e., post hoc changing to “Method B”). With budesonide the applicant was lucky enough to pass (lower CL 0.80; both of AUC and C_max) but I have seen other cases. BTW, the GL tells us that the CI should be given in percent rounded to two decimals. Would this study still be accepted now?

BSWP:

• Methods based entirely on simulations are not acceptable.
  
• The maximum TIE must not exceed 0.05 (exactly).

Some assessors I know:

“I accept studies with Potvin’s methods if the CI is not too close to the acceptance range.

Now to the fully replicated 4-period study:

❝ Alpha 2.94%. Approved in Germany, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Hungary, Italy, 2015

“Correct statistical analysis was conduced.” Hhm. Pocock’s natural constant. “Method B” applied outside its valid range (2×2×2 crossover, n₁ 12–60, CV 10–100%). C_max of budesonide again a close shave.

---

Edit: Seems that the study was not intended for reference-scaling (page 10: “C_max […] within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 0.80-1.25.”
The CV of C_max was ~50%. If we assume that n₁ (2×2×2) is 2n₁ (2×2×4) we are again outside Potvin’s range (92 > 80). However, likely the TIE was controlled. Quick & dirty:

library(Power2Stage)
power.2stage(method="B", alpha=rep(0.0294, 2), n1=46*2,
             GMR=0.95, CV=0.5, targetpower=0.8,
             theta0=1.25, nsims=1e6)$pBE
[1] 0.040382