No comparison of variabilities any more? [BE/BA News]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-07-02 17:11 (969 d 02:03 ago) – Posting: # 22452
Views: 3,164

Hi Ohlbe,

THX for the update!

Regrettably I couldn’t find the Nov 2018 guideline any more. It stated that “the variabilities associated with each product should be assessed”. I was always asking myself how that should be done.This recommendation was dropped. Fine.

However, I don’t get why only a four-period, full replicate design (underlined in the original) will be accepted. Even if one compares – for fun – the variabilities of T and R, a 3-period 2-sequence full replicate design would do as well. Actually the estimated variabilities are more reliable in the latter, since for equally powered studies their sample size is higher. The confidence interval of the \(\small{CV}\) depends on its associated variance based on the \(\small{\chi^2}\)-distribution with \(\small{n-2}\) degrees of freedom, and, voilà, it will be narrower (see the end of the section there).

Or a bit provocative: Since a comparison of variabilities is no more required, why is a partial replicate not acceptable (as it is for Cmax)? The estimated \(\small{CV_\textrm{wR}}\) is most accurate of all designs (I don’t like it but that’s another story).

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
22,912 posts in 4,806 threads, 1,635 registered users;
32 visitors (0 registered, 32 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:15 CET (Europe/Vienna)

[…] an inappropriate study design is incapable of answering
a research question, no matter how careful the subsequent
methodology, conduct, analysis, and interpretation:
Flawless execution of a flawed design achieves nothing worthwhile.    J. Rick Turner

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