AngusMcLean ★★ USA, 2014-06-25 04:11 (3960 d 19:35 ago) Posting: # 13137 Views: 19,094 |
|
We have early partial AUC data from a completed study and the CV (%) for the early partial AUC intrasubject between formulation variance is 30.5%. The reason we have measured the partial AUC is that we are required by the FDA to submit BE data on the partial AUC metric when performing a pivotal BE study. The question arises if we should use a replicate study design. I am thinking "yes" and thinking in terms of a full replicate design comparing test and reference formulations. I am thinking in terms of estimating sample size and power. Are there Tables available for estimating the sample size and power of such study designs I have information here only for nonrepliciate BE study designs. Comments are most welcome on this topic, Angus |
Helmut ★★★ ![]() ![]() Vienna, Austria, 2014-06-25 04:53 (3960 d 18:53 ago) @ AngusMcLean Posting: # 13138 Views: 17,879 |
|
Hi Angus, ❝ We have early partial AUC data from a completed study and the CV (%) for the early partial AUC intrasubject between formulation variance is 30.5%. If this was a nonreplicated study CVintra is pooled from CVWR and CVWT. ❝ The reason we have measured the partial AUC is that we are required by the FDA to submit BE data on the partial AUC metric when performing a pivotal BE study. Zolpidem, MPH? ❝ The question arises if we should use a replicate study design. Are you thinking about RSABE? If CVintra ~ CVWR ~ CVWT with 30.5% you will save something in the sample size (example will follow). ❝ I am thinking "yes"… Well, would be nice if the FDA accepts RSABE for this drug. ❝ …and thinking in terms of a full replicate design comparing test and reference formulations. Nothing tells you more about the performance of formulations than a fully replicated design. I like it. ❝ I am thinking in terms of estimating sample size and power. Are there Tables available for estimating the sample size and power of such study designs. Only one paper.* You need simulations, since there is no explicit formula for power of the mixed procedure (no scaling for sWR <0.294, scaling ≥0.294, T/R within 0.8–1.25). The convergence is slow (the 10,000 sim’s of the paper are to few). In the meantime the two Lászlós themselves recommend the freeware R / package PowerTOST .❝ I have information here only for nonrepliciate BE study designs. OK, you can play around with what you got.
![]()
— 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 |
AngusMcLean ★★ USA, 2014-06-25 15:42 (3960 d 08:04 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 13142 Views: 17,350 |
|
Many Thanks Helmut; It was a non-replicated study design. We are considering RSABE according to the recent FDA presentations and papers. The full replicate design is indeed what I favor. I did a sample size calculation for the non replicate design (usual cross over design) using the Excel spreadsheet FARTSIE from David Dubins, I have found this spreadsheet to be most useful in the past. Using a desired power of 0.9, with CV of 30.05 and an anticipated ratio of 0.93. I get 67 subjects and this is more than your estimate. I wonder why? {I must try the freeware package you recommend}. I do have a Study Size program from Sweden, but have not used it for this project as yet. It seems to be an excellent program. Update using Study Size for the above sample size calculation again I get 67 subjects. There is a reference I have found that appears to be most useful since it tabulates the simulations for sample size including the EMEA and FDA’s approach to highly variable drugs. Sample Sizes for Designing Bioequivalence Studies for Highly Variable Drugs Laszlo Tothfalusi1 and Laszlo Endrenyi2 1 Semmelweis University, Department of Pharmacodynamics, Budapest, Hungary. 2 University of Toronto, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Toronto, ON, Canada, J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci (www.cspsCanada.org) 15(1) 73 - 84, 2012 When I consult this paper I see for the fully replicate design with 4 periods that for CV of 30% and power 0.9 with GMR ratio of 0.9 that 38 subjects are estimated. So I am thinking ~ 40 subjects is needed. Any thought are welcome, Angus |
Helmut ★★★ ![]() ![]() Vienna, Austria, 2014-06-25 17:02 (3960 d 06:44 ago) @ AngusMcLean Posting: # 13144 Views: 16,972 |
|
Hi Angus, ❝ I did a sample size calculation for the non replicate design (usual cross over design) using the Excel spreadsheet FARTSIE from David Dubins… A member of the Forum since 2007. ![]() ❝ I have found this spreadsheet to be most useful in the past. Yep, AFAIK it is still widely used. ❝ Using a desired power of 0.9, with CV of 30.05 and an anticipated ratio of 0.93. I get 67 subjects and this is more than your estimate. I wonder why?
sampleN.RSABE(CV=0.3005, theta0=0.93, targetpower=0.9, design="2x2x4", details=F) giving… ++++++++ Reference scaled ABE crit. +++++++++ Now we see a difference: n=30 (RSABE) and n=34 (ABE). Why? ABE assumes the CV as “carved in stone”, whereas in real life the CV might be larger → apply scaling → fewer subjects needed to achieve the target power. ❝ {I must try the freeware package you recommend}. Go ahead! ❝ I do have a Study Size program from Sweden, but have not used it for this project as yet. It seems to be an excellent program. Update using Study Size for the above sample size calculation again I get 67 subjects. Yes, but for unscaled ABE in a 2×2 design. Study Size does not work for RSABE as well. I you apply the “rule of thumb” n/2 and perform the study in 34 subjects, it will be overpowered: power.RSABE(theta0=0.93, CV=0.3005, n=34, design="2x2x4") Explain to your boss why you plan to run the study in 34 subjects if 30 will give you already a power of 91.5%. ❝ There is a reference I have found… Hey, that’s the reference I gave you in my last post. ![]() ❝ When I consult this paper I see for the fully replicate design with 4 periods that for CV of 30% and power 0.9 with GMR ratio of 0.9 that 38 subjects are estimated. You have to look it up in Table A4, second part. For CV 30% they report n=44 for GMR 0.90 and n=23 (imbalanced: round up to 24) for GMR 0.95. ❝ So I am thinking ~ 40 subjects is needed. Nope. 30. Homework:
— 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 |
AngusMcLean ★★ USA, 2014-06-25 22:05 (3960 d 01:41 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 13146 Views: 16,702 |
|
Helmut: My apologies I am having difficult getting access to the site and posting. It is a battle and I am distracted by it and making many errors. I have now switched to Firefox to see if that will work. Yes; the paper is the same paper you recommended, but I have it as 2012 J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci (www.cspsCanada.org) 15(1) 73 - 84, 2012 Laszlo Tothfalusi1 and Laszlo Endrenyi2 I am focusing on Table 4 second part (FDA approach) and I see that at 90% power for GMR=1.1 {as recommended by authors} the sample size needed is 38 subjects for a CV of 30%. I note that your program in R estimates sample size for RSABE. I will see if I can download and see what it provides. I will switch back to Explorer and see if I can get it to work. Angus |
Helmut ★★★ ![]() ![]() Vienna, Austria, 2014-06-25 23:29 (3960 d 00:17 ago) @ AngusMcLean Posting: # 13147 Views: 16,755 |
|
Hi Angus, ❝ […] I am having difficult getting access to the site and posting. It is a battle and I am distracted by it and making many errors. I have now switched to Firefox to see if that will work. Sorry about that. I checked my server’s log-files and it seems that some script-kiddies are trying to hack into the database. Low chances, but side-effects due to high server load. My suggestion: Regularly copy the entire text-area to the clipboard (Ctrl-A Ctrl-C). If you get disconnected you could insert the stuff into a new reply. ❝ I am focusing on Table 4 second part (FDA approach)… I guess you mean Table A4 on p84. ❝ …and I see that at 90% power for GMR=1.1 {as recommended by authors} the sample size needed is 38 subjects for a CV of 30%. Contrary to 2×2 crossovers (5% deviation) in HVDs/HVDPs PEs “jump around” between studies. Therefore, the Lászlós recommend a 10% deviation. If you have no idea about the direction, always use the lower (<1) one. The upper one will be covered as well. Example 10% deviation. Assuming 90% we will get the same power for 1/0.9=1.1111% (110% is covered as well). This doesn’t work the other way ’round. If you start with 110%, you will get the same power for 1/1.1=0.9090. 90% is not covered! But you expect the ratio at 0.93, right? Therefore, according to Table A4 the sample size will be between 23 (→24!) for 0.95 and 44 for 0.90. PowerTOST suggests 30 for 0.93. ❝ I note that your program in R estimates sample size for RSABE. It also allows sample size estimation for cases where CVWR ≠ CVWT. This reduces the sample size if you know that the reference is lousy and the test shows lower variability (an effect commonly seen in studies of PPIs). From a 2×2 crossover you only get CVintra (pooled from CVWR and CVWT). However, in the backyard you can play around with assumptions. Let’s say got CVintra 30% in a 2×2 crossover and assume T/R-ratios of intra-subject variances to be 1:1, 3:4, and 1:2. Try this code: CVs <- CVp2CV(0.3, ratio=c(1, 3/4, 1/2)) You will get decomposed per-treatment CVs: CVwT CVwR Now you can feed the rows to sampleN.RSABE in order to assess their impact on sample size. Example for CVintra 30%, target power 90%, T/R-ratio 90%, equal and different CVs, 2×2×4 RSABE:for (j in 1:3) { ─────────────────────────── This is one of the reasons why it makes sense to perform already the pilot study in a fully replicated design. It may pay off in a smaller pivotal. ❝ I will see if I can download and see what it provides. Some hints about installation in this post. ❝ I will switch back to Explorer and see if I can get it to work. I’m afraid the problems are on my side of the pond. ![]() — 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 |
AngusMcLean ★★ USA, 2014-06-27 19:37 (3958 d 04:10 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 13159 Views: 16,632 |
|
Helmut: Thank you for your help and suggestion. It seems that Firefox works for me. For this work there is no marketed reference formulation; it is a unique MR formulation of an existing drug. We are doing a site change and making pivotal batches and we wish to compare the new site to the original site material, which will be the reference. Logically we should perform or have performed a Pilot study to get good parameter estimates prior to pivotal. ……”Schadenfreude” Why I said 0.93 is that I think is a reasonable target for us to aim for a ratio of (0.93-1.07) or perhaps (0.92-1.08). I will use the lower one in future for calculations. I will try your program; certainly it does look great. There is a mirror near here at N.I.H. in Bethesda, Angus |
d_labes ★★★ Berlin, Germany, 2014-06-30 11:47 (3955 d 12:00 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 13168 Views: 16,915 |
|
Dear Helmut! ❝ We could calculate power for n=67 as well: ❝ ❝ [1] 0.9011207 That is not recommended. Just to cite the help page of power.TOST: "The formulas used assume balanced studies, i.e. equal number of subjects in the (sequence) groups." Use instead: power2.TOST(CV=0.3005, theta0=0.93, n=c(34,33), design="2x2") Depending on the imbalance you may get even power below 90%: power2.TOST(CV=0.3005, theta0=0.93, n=c(35,32), design="2x2") May be I should improve the documentation with a more direct reference to power2.TOST() and a warning.— Regards, Detlew |
Helmut ★★★ ![]() ![]() Vienna, Austria, 2014-06-30 14:02 (3955 d 09:44 ago) @ d_labes Posting: # 13170 Views: 16,697 |
|
Dear Detlew, ❝ […] "The formulas used assume balanced studies, i.e. equal number of subjects in the (sequence) groups." ❝ May be I should improve the documentation with a more direct reference to Yes, please! Though I knew power2.TOST() – introduced in Dec 2011 – in the heat of battle I forgot using it. ![]() BTW, FARTSSIE17 reports for n=67 a power of 0.9011206 .power2.TOST(CV=0.3005, theta0=0.93, n=c(34,33), design="2x2", method="nct") Close, but not identical. — 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 |
ElMaestro ★★★ Denmark, 2014-06-30 14:31 (3955 d 09:15 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 13171 Views: 16,639 |
|
Hi Hötzi, ❝ BTW, FARTSSIE17 reports for ❝ ❝ ❝ ❝ ❝ Close, but not identical.
power2.TOST(CV=0.3005, theta0=0.93, n=c(33.5,33.5), design="2x2", method="nct") — Pass or fail! ElMaestro |
Helmut ★★★ ![]() ![]() Vienna, Austria, 2014-06-30 14:43 (3955 d 09:03 ago) @ ElMaestro Posting: # 13172 Views: 16,573 |
|
Hi ElMaestro, ❝ ❝ BTW, FARTSSIE17 reports for ❝ ❝ Great detective work. Amazing Kinetica-style! Never trust in any piece of software you haven’t written yourself (and even then you should be cautious…) Jaime R. — 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 |
ElMaestro ★★★ Denmark, 2014-06-30 15:07 (3955 d 08:40 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 13173 Views: 16,483 |
|
Hi Hötzi, ❝ Great detective work. Amazing Kinetica-style! I had a phunny pheeling you might comment something like that ![]() From the study report page 673 section 45.274.48Z: "To achieve 90% power this study aimed at 33.5 completing healthy adult children with chronic persistent Alzheimer in each sequence for a total of 67 . Due to a dropout rate of 1/26 (=3.85%) observed in the pilot trial 34.84 subjects were enrolled in each sequence out of a total of 23.87+41i subjects screened. Our in-house statistician decided to take early retirement prior to signing the SAP."— Pass or fail! ElMaestro |