Expected loss in power [Design Issues]
❝ Expiry of reference product is only one year and we are planning to conduct 3-WSABE study due to high variability. Due to this we could not keep long wash out period.
OK, since you are limited by the shelf life of the reference I assume that the FDA would still expect you to plan the washouts as long as possible.
❝ however we are taking chance that if pre dose >5 % would be higher then it would not been considered for the BE.
Nitpicking: ≥5%, not >5%. State conditions for exclusion unambiguously in the protocol.
You shouldn’t worry about loosing power due to excluded subjects. Example for GMR 0.9 (conservative, since highly variable!), CV 60%, target power 90%, minimum power 80%, partial replicate design, FDA’s RSABE:
library(PowerTOST)
pa.scABE(CV=0.6, theta=0.9, targetpower=0.9, minpower=0.8,
design="2x3x3", regulator="FDA")
gives
Sample size plan scABE (FDA/RSABE)
Design alpha CVwT CVwR theta0 theta1 theta2 Sample size Achieved power Target power
2x3x3 0.05 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.25 57 0.90445 0.9
Power analysis
CV, theta0 and number of subjects which lead to min. acceptable power of at least 0.8:
CV= 0.9993, theta0= 0.8633
N = 31 (power= 0.8008)
If you perform the study in 57 subjects, you may loose (dropouts) and/or exclude (predose ≥5% Cmax) 26 (45%!) and still achieve 80% power.
❝ We performed one pilot study […] In which we got total 13 subject out of 48 with positive pre dose. Out of 13, 09 subject has shown > 5% pre dose concentration.
OK, that’s ~20%. Following ElMaestro’s question: Did you see any differences between T and R – especially in λz? For such a formulation λz represents absorption… Or the other way ’round: Was there a substantial difference in the PEs of AUCt and AUC∞? If yes, you should consider to sample longer.
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png)
Helmut Schütz
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png)
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- Positive Pre-dose in subsequent period of long acting depot injection Compliance 2015-10-14 12:54 [Design Issues]
- Exclusion of subjects Helmut 2015-10-14 14:44
- Positive Pre-dose in subsequent period of long acting depot injection ElMaestro 2015-10-14 22:37
- Positive Pre-dose in subsequent period of long acting depot injection Compliance 2015-10-15 07:36
- Expected loss in powerHelmut 2015-10-15 13:45
- Positive Pre-dose in subsequent period of long acting depot injection Compliance 2015-10-15 07:36