[Opinion] Should the 90% CI for GMR be required to encompass 1 [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-03-29 01:57 (2013 d 17:38 ago) – Posting: # 18612
Views: 9,539

Hi bebac_fan,

❝ I am a new poster, long time lurker.

Welcome to the club. Do you know what Groucho Marx said about clubs?

❝ I am […] crazy (but not formally trained) about statistics.

Welcome to the Amateur League. :-D

I try to respond not only to this post but to others of yours.

❝ My question involves the case where an entire GMR 90% confidence interval is outside of 100.00 […]. For HVD with wide therapeutic index, I believe this is reasonable. But what about for a NTID with doses that differ by less than 15%?

❝ I understand this is part of the reason that RSABE and ABEL are implemented. However, let us assume that the Swr is 22% and essentially expands reference scaling to ABE limits. Let us also assume that a 7% difference in BE is clinically significant.

You’ve chosen a nice swR! With the FDA’s RSABE for NTIDs the “implied BE limits” would be wider than the conventional ABE’s 80.00–125.00% for any CVwR >21.42% (swR 0.2118). Hence, according to the book you have to pass the conventional limits as well.

❝ […] I am saying that a large enough sample size can force a test product with e.g. 89% relative BA (e.g. 100mg/112mg) relative to RLD to pass. The difference between 100 and 112mg is clinically significant for this product. I am wondering if adding the condition I talked about from the beginning would help.

OK, let’s ignore ElMaestro’s and John’s concerns about potency for a minute and assume that both drugs have a true potency of 100% (of their labeled contents of 100 and 112 mg).
I know that you are R-geek. ;-) Do we really need a large sample size?

sampleN.NTIDFDA(CV=0.22, theta0=100/112, design="2x2x4", details=FALSE)

+++++++++++ FDA method for NTIDs ++++++++++++
           Sample size estimation
Study design:  2x2x4
log-transformed data (multiplicative model)
1e+05 studies for each step simulated.

alpha  = 0.05, target power = 0.8
CVw(T) = 0.22, CVw(R) = 0.22
True ratio     = 0.8928571
ABE limits     = 0.8 ... 1.25
Regulatory settings: FDA

Sample size
 n     power
36   0.810220

If everything comes out exactly as assumed, what will we get?

round(100*CI.BE(pe=100/112, CV=0.22, n=36, design="2x2x4", robust=TRUE), 2)

lower upper
83.98 94.93

Although we would be allowed to scale a tiny bit

sigma0             <- 0.1 # CV 10.02505. Why? Ask the FDA.
Impl.Limits        <- exp(c(-1, +1)*log(1.11111)*CV2se(0.22)/sigma0)
names(Impl.Limits) <- c("L", "U")
round(100*Impl.Limits, 2)

     L      U
 79.53 125.74

with such a CVwR the condition “must pass ABE” is important. If you want to explore the overall-power (plus the ones of the three tests) try:

power.NTIDFDA(theta0=100/112, CV=0.22, n=36, design="2x2x4", details=TRUE)

   p(BE)  p(BE-sABEc)    p(BE-ABE) p(BE-sratio)
 0.81022      0.83051      0.90737      0.99986

OK, the study passes despite that the GMR is with 82.64% below your clinically significant difference (–7%).

No qualified opinion about your

❝ […] is it reasonable to require the 90% CI for GMR to fall within 1?

But: θ is within the 90% CI of the GMR. The upper CL (94.93%) overlaps with your “relevant” lower limit of 93%.

BTW, for the EMA (fixed BE-limits of 90.00–111.11%) try this:

sampleN.TOST(CV=0.22, theta0=100/112, theta1=0.90, design="2x2x4", details=FALSE)

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,764 posts in 4,776 threads, 1,628 registered users;
11 visitors (0 registered, 11 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:36 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The object of statistics is information.
The objective of statistics is the understanding of information
contained in data.    Irwin and Marylees Miller

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