Sample size for scABEL/RSABE vs. conventional ABE [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2015-06-25 11:19 (3662 d 14:19 ago) – Posting: # 14984
Views: 15,015

Dear Astea!

I can't retrace why you are shocked that the sample size for scABEL is much lower than that of conventional average bioequivalence (ABE).

Quote from the paper of the two László's *:
"Both EMA and FDA developed the approaches for highly variable drugs in order to reduce the regulatory burden, i.e. to lower the required number of subjects in BE studies. The sample size tables in the Appendix demonstrate that both authorities achieve this goal."

Your computations verify that statement :cool:.

BTW: Your statement that no more than 40 subjects are needed is only valid in your investigated CV range. CV=0.8 (80%) gives for your settings n=50.
For the FDA recommended method (RSABE) and regulatory settings the sample sizes are even lower.



Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,427 posts in 4,929 threads, 1,678 registered users;
20 visitors (0 registered, 20 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:38 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important.    T. S. Eliot

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