HVDs? [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2008-09-23 14:52 (6055 d 19:03 ago) – Posting: # 2388
Views: 23,929

[image]Dear all!

another one from the 'Far Side':

Standard design, page 5 (lines 148-151)
'If two formulations are going to be compared, a two-period, two-sequence single dose crossover design is the design of choice. The treatment periods should be separated by an adequate wash out period.'
Alternative designs, page 6 (lines 172-175)
'Under certain circumstances, provided the study design and the statistical analyses are scientifically sound, alternative well-established designs could be considered such as [...] replicate designs e.g. for substances with highly variable pharmacokinetic characteristics (see section 4.1.10).'
Number of subjects, page 7 (lines 223-224)
'The number of subjects to be included in the study should be based on an appropriate sample size calculation. The minimum number of subjects in a cross-over study should be 12.'
Acceptance limits, page 14 (lines 561-562)
'[...] Moreover, for highly variable drugs the acceptance interval for Cmax may in certain cases be widened (see section 4.1.10).'
4.1.10 Highly variable drugs or drug products, page 16 (lines 631-641)
'In certain cases, Cmax is of less importance for clinical efficacy and safety compared with AUC. When this is applicable, the acceptance criteria for Cmax can be widened to 75-133% provided that all of the following are fulfilled:
  • the widening has been prospectively defined in the study protocol
  • it has been prospectively justified that widening of the acceptance criteria for Cmax does not affect clinical efficacy or safety
  • the bioequivalence study is of a replicate design where it has been demonstrated that the within-subject variability for Cmax of the reference compound in the study is >30%.
This approach does not apply to AUC.
It is acceptable to apply either a 3-period or a 4-period crossover scheme in the replicate design study.'

OK, in my understanding (1) and (2) of 4.1.10 were already stated in the current NfG (2001) - although (2) was not mandatory according to the Q&A-document (CV>30% was enough), the second part of (3) had already to be demonstrated in a replicate design pilot study (Q&A) - but what do we gain from the first part of (3) = mandatory replicate design?
If scaling is not allowed, it makes no difference in terms of power to run a study in a 2x2 design in 96 subjects or in a 2x4 replicate design in 48 subjects. We only increase the chance of drop-outs due to events in the washout phases (3 as compared to 1).
Example: We assume a dropout rate of 10% / washout. In the 2x2 study in 96 subjects this means 96+10=106 (212 treatments), in the 2x4 study in 48 subjects: 48+16=64 (256 treatments). Ethically?
From a practical point of view a replicate design offers some insights on within-subject variability, but we are not allowed to exclude outliers anyway. So why all that fuzz?
One of the authors told me that he will have no problems in accepting a study combining 'everything' in one pot: replicate pilot -> HVD demonstrated -> second (BE) phase -> pooling. Is this the intention? Nice, but I would be glad if someone would tell me a valid statistical procedure (no, Bonferroni most likely will not do the job).
—
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, 1,671 registered users;
23 visitors (0 registered, 23 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:55 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The difference between a surrogate and a true endpoint
is like the difference between a cheque and cash.
You can get the cheque earlier but then,
of course, it might bounce.    Stephen Senn

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