Now I got it! [Power / Sample Size]
❝ Many thanks for your response.
Welcome – though I missed the target.
❝ I am not even sure if I need to reply before or after your text.
See there.
❝ Is it possible you misunderstood my question?
Given what you posted in the following, yes, indeed.
❝ What I meant to ask is if I do replicate crossover, i.e., 50 subjects on Test x 2 periods and 50 subjects on Reference x 2 periods (replicate crossover, 2X2X4) as opposed to 100 subjects on test x 1 period and 100 subjects on Reference x 1 period (2X2X2), do I gain any sample size (or power) efficiency using FDA 3-tests (per PSG) for Levothyroxine?
That’s hypothetical cause the FDA will not accept a 2×2×2 crossover. Study cost hinges mainly on the number of treatments (which drives the number of samples and hence, costs of bioanalytics). Peanuts: In a replicate (less subjects) you safe some costs of pre-/post study lab exams which might be outweighed by a higher chance of dropouts.
See Fig.1.
Anyway: Let’s compare the FDA’s RSABE and the EMA’s fixed limits of 90.00–111.11% (in 2×2×2 and 2×2×4 crossovers) to conventional ABE with fixed limits of 80.00–125.00% (2×2×2 crossover)* based on data assessed by the FDA in 2011.
library(PowerTOST)
# Yu (2011) https://www.fda.gov/media/82940/Download
# 9 ANDAs of Levothyroxine: Cmax
CV <- c(0.052, 0.096, 0.186) # min, mean, max)
theta0 <- 0.975 # assumed T/R-ratio
target <- 0.80 # target power ≥80%
x <- data.frame(CV = CV, n.FDA = NA_integer_, cost.FDA = NA_real_,
n.EMA2 = NA_integer_, cost.EMA2 = NA_real_,
n.EMA4 = NA_integer_, cost.EMA4 = NA_real_,
n.ABE = NA_integer_, cost.ABE = 1)
for (j in seq_along(CV)) {
# RSABE for NTIDs, 2x2x4 design mandatory acc. to the guidance
x$n.FDA[j] <- sampleN.NTIDFDA(CV = CV[j], theta0 = theta0,
targetpower = target, details = FALSE,
print = FALSE)[["Sample size"]]
# EMA for NTIDs, fixed limits 90.00-111.11%
# 2x2x2 design (in product-specific guidance for NTIDs)
x$n.EMA2[j] <- sampleN.TOST(CV = CV[j], theta0 = theta0, theta1 = 0.90,
targetpower = target, design = "2x2x2",
print = FALSE)[["Sample size"]]
# 2x2x4 design (optional)
x$n.EMA4[j] <- sampleN.TOST(CV = CV[j], theta0 = theta0, theta1 = 0.90,
targetpower = target, design = "2x2x4",
print = FALSE)[["Sample size"]]
# conventional ABE, 2x2x2 design, fixed limits 80.00-125.00%
x$n.ABE[j] <- sampleN.TOST(CV = CV[j], theta0 = theta0, theta1 = 0.80,
targetpower = target, design = "2x2x2",
print = FALSE)[["Sample size"]]
# minimum sample size acc. to the guideline
if (x$n.EMA2[j] < 12) x$n.EMA2[j] <- 12
if (x$n.EMA4[j] < 12) x$n.EMA4[j] <- 12
if (x$n.ABE[j] < 12) x$n.ABE[j] <- 12
}
# cost relative to ABE 2×2×2 design with fixed limits 80.00-125.00%
x$cost.FDA <- x$n.FDA * 2 / x$n.ABE
x$cost.EMA2 <- x$n.EMA2 / x$n.ABE
x$cost.EMA4 <- x$n.EMA4 * 2 / x$n.ABE
names(x)[c(3, 5, 7, 9)] <- rep("cost", 4)
print(signif(x, 4), row.names = FALSE)
CV n.FDA cost n.EMA2 cost n.EMA4 cost n.ABE cost
0.052 30 5.000 12 1.000 12 2.000 12 1
0.096 18 3.000 20 1.667 12 2.000 12 1
0.186 16 2.286 70 5.000 34 4.857 14 1
In short: For low variability RSABE is more costly than the EMA’s fixed limits. If the CV is larger than ~12% it is the other way ’round.
Don’t forget the comparisons of variabilities. Whereas for the EMA’s approaches we assume homoscedasticity \(\small{(s_\textrm{wT}^2\equiv s_\textrm{wR}^2),}\) in RSABE a test for unequal variances is part of the procedure (see Fig.3). Hence, I recommend a pilot study to avoid surprises.
- The EMA recommends 90.00–111.11% for AUC0–48 and 80.00–125.00% for Cmax. A replicate design is not required (though always acceptable).
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- Sample Size "Efficiency" of Replicate CO vs. 2-way CO for NTID Sereng 2022-01-30 23:11 [Power / Sample Size]
- Sample Size "Efficiency" of Replicate CO vs. 2-way CO for NTID ElMaestro 2022-01-30 23:50
- OT d_labes 2022-01-31 18:48
- Follow the guidance (if possible) Helmut 2022-01-30 23:52
- Follow the guidance (if possible) Sereng 2022-01-31 21:58
- Now I got it!Helmut 2022-01-31 23:53
- Follow the guidance (if possible) Sereng 2022-01-31 21:58
- Sample Size "Efficiency" of Replicate CO vs. 2-way CO for NTID ElMaestro 2022-01-30 23:50