Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum 12:28 CET

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

More information, please [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage - Vienna, Austria, 2016-05-12 14:34  - Posting: # 16299
Views: 13,470

Hi Angus,

» We have completed a dose proportionality study using the lowest strength to the highest strength of a modified release formulation of a class I drug. The approach used was the usual cross-over design with 20 subjects (AB, BA) and dose normalized the PK parameters Cmax and AUC0-T prior to bioequivalence. No problem we are BE comfortably within the limits (0.8-1.25).

Testing only two levels for dose proportionality is somewhat unconventional.

» Another worker has used the power model with the same data set for dose proportionality […]

Does it look like this (high dose = 8× low dose)?


» The point estimates are much the same as my approach, […]

Numbers? AUC only – Cmax is of limited value in DP.

» […] but he quotes 98% CI.

Smells of Bonferroni’s adjustment for four simultaneous (and independent) tests in order to control the familywise error rate: 100(1–2α/4) = 97.5% CI and FWER 1–(1–α)4 = 0.0491.
In the power model we have only two parameters (the coefficient α and the exponent β: E[D] = α·D β (independent from the number of dose levels tested) and we are interested only in β. I don’t see why a multiplicity-adjustment was done.

» His CI values are also within the lmits.

How did he get a CI of β? With two dose levels we have zero degrees of freedom for a model with two para­meters.

Before we can discuss variances, we need more information.

Helmut Schütz

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,032 posts in 4,059 threads, 1,299 registered users;
online 18 (1 registered, 17 guests [including 10 identified bots]).

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that
something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
When he states that something is impossible,
he is very probably wrong.    Arthur C. Clarke

BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz