T/R 110% [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-11-30 15:02 (4594 d 06:11 ago) – Posting: # 11992
Views: 9,804

Hi Kumar,

❝ If in my earlier studies I am getting T/R ratio= 110% means >5% difference then for planning another study for another market should I go with the T/R=110% or 95% for sample size estimation.


The former. Although with another reference product the ratio might be better, without a pilot study I would suggest a conservative approach.

❝ As per EMA guideline (2010) "batches should not differ more than 5%" so taking 10% difference in T/R ratio is considerable.


Yes, why not? The ≤5% refer to measured contents, not the assumed in vivo ratio.

❝ Also if I am taking the T/R ratio=110% I am getting sample size around 50 (without dropout) …


Correct (given the CV of 24.3%).

❝ … but many studies I found for this drug is around 40 even …


Some drug, but different formulations.

❝ … our earlier study had 42.

❝ LnCmax ratio=110.3 (90%CI- 101.06-120.54) CV=24.3.


Passed by luck. “Power” was 76%.

❝ then in that case if am exceeding sample size will it considered as a forced bioequivalence?


Don’t think so – unless you go to Denmark* (100% not included in CI).



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
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,570 registered users;
307 visitors (0 registered, 307 guests [including 19 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:14 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