PE constraint and “politics” [R for BE/BA]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-11-03 13:04  – Posting: # 19526
Views: 837

Hi GM,

» As this is a replicated study, there are only few articles for calculating the sample size.

If reference-scaling (RSABE, ABEL) is concerned, do you know any article except the two Lászlós’?1
We need simulations because the methods are implicitly sequential. Like in any framework (following a decision scheme) an analytical solution for power does not exist.
  1. Estimate swR.
    If <0.294* (FDA) or CVwR (100√wR–1) ≤ 30% (EMA) apply conventional, unscaled ABE.
    Otherwise, continue with the respective reference-scaling method.
  2. For the EMA (and others) observe an upper cap of the CVwR (i.e., don’t expand the limits beyond this point).
  3. Assess the point estimate restriction.
We have two decision points for the FDA (a, c) and three (a, b, c) for the EMA…

However, the sample size estimation for ABE in replicate designs is straightforward (i.e., does not require simulations). Use sampleN.TOST() instead.

» There is no clear information about this. So that, I suppose to understand concept through R-program.

Tóthfalusi et. al.2 is a good starting point. Other references are given in the man-pages of PowerTOST.

» I thought CVswitch=0.30 for both FDA and EMA, …

Correct.

» … r_const=0.25 and 0.760 for FDA and EMA respectively …

Not quite. The switching condition θs (aka regulatory constant) is based on the regulatory standardized variation σw0. For the FDA σw0 = 0.25 and for the EMA based on CVwR 30% as σw0 = √log(0.30²+1) = 0.2935604. Then θs = log(1.25)/σw0 = 0.8925742 (FDA) and 0.7601283 (EMA).
Note that σw0 0.25 is explicitly given by the FDA and therefore, the regulatory constant in PowerTOST is used in full precision.* On the other hand, the EMA requires the rounded 0.760 (termed k in the GL) and an upper cap for scaling at CVwR 50% (EL 69.84–143.19%). Check the conditions:

library(PowerTOST)
reg_const("FDA")
FDA regulatory settings
- CVswitch            = 0.3
- no cap on scABEL
- regulatory constant = 0.8925742

- pe constraint applied
reg_const("EMA")
EMA regulatory settings
- CVswitch            = 0.3
- cap on scABEL if CVw(R) > 0.5
- regulatory constant = 0.76

- pe constraint applied


» … and don't know about the pe_constr.

It was introduced by all agencies following suggestions by Les Benet (see this post). It is “political” and leads to statistical troubles (essentially we are truncating the distribution and the entire concept is built on sand).Note that the EMA’s method is followed in many other jurisdictions (WHO, ANVISA, Russia, EEC, Australia, New Zealand, Egypt). Health Canada’s TGD requires an upper cap for scaling at CVwR 57.38% (EL 66.7–150.0%). Try reg_const("HC").


  1. Endrényi L, Tóthfalusi L. Sample Sizes for Designing Bioequivalence Studies for Highly Variable Drugs. J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci. 2011;15(1):73–84. [image] free resource.
  2. Tóthfalusi L, Endrényi L, García-Arieta A. Evaluation of Bioequivalence for Highly Variable Drugs with Scaled Average Bioequivalence. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2009;48(11):725–43. doi:10.2165/11318040-000000000-00000


Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,478 posts in 4,133 threads, 1,333 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 05:21 CEST

If you don’t know anything about computers,
just remember that they are machines that do exactly what you tell them
but often surprise you in the result.    Richard Dawkins

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5