is something fishy in case 2? [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2008-11-29 16:42 (6046 d 18:04 ago) – Posting: # 2835
Views: 7,651

Dea Dr Garg,

I am not sure I follow you completely regarding case 2:

❝ Case-2: I have done another pilot study with parallel design for a very long half-life drug B and I have calculated the sample size for the pivotal study using SAS considering total CV of 0.16 and observed %T/R ratio of 112.08. The sample size calculated is 27 for two-way cross-over study as programmed. In that case can I do the pivotal parallel study with at least double the number of subjects i.e. 54?


Not considering the last sentence there, I get the impression that you first did a parallel pilot which gave you a CV and a T/R estimate, which you then used to power a crossover trial?
This does not sound right. As indicated in previous question and further elaborated on by DLabes, the CV you get in a parallel study is not the intra-CV you need for powering the crossover trial.
As a rule of thumb a parallel pilot study will give you info you can use to plan another parallel study; a crossover pilot will give you what you need to power another crossover trial (or optionally even a parallel one).

Best regards
EM.

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,676 registered users;
35 visitors (0 registered, 35 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:47 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

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