Two Stage Design [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2008-08-25 13:43 (6141 d 12:21 ago) – Posting: # 2249
Views: 25,515

Dear Ravi,

I would go with ‘Method C’ suggested by Potvin et al. (2007).* The design was validated in 1,000,000 simulated BE studies in numerous combinations of sample sizes (12–60 subjects in stage 1) and CVs (10–100%).
The α-level (patient’s risk) was maintained at ≤0.052 - which is not the case by methods currently applied in Canada and Japan (evaluation of stage 1 at α=0.05, simple pooling of a second stage; results presented in the reference as ‘Method A’).
Below an outline of the procedure:

[image]
For your example you have two possibilities to show BE already in stage 1:
  1. Power ≥80%: evaluation at α=0.0500
  2. Power <80%: evaluation at α=0.0294


Edit: Our first study with this design was approved by one of Berlin’s IECs and the German BfArM in May 2009.

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

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,673 registered users;
77 visitors (0 registered, 77 guests [including 61 identified bots]).
Forum time: 02:05 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Philosophy, like medicine, has plenty of drugs, few good remedies,
and hardly any specific cures.    Sebastien-Roch Nicolas de Chamfort

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5