beman
☆    

2011-08-18 14:49
(5429 d 00:31 ago)

Posting: # 7282
Views: 6,027
 

 2 Formulation 3 Periods replicative design - sequences [RSABE / ABEL]

Dear All,

according to the new EMA-Guideline we want to perform a study in a 2 Formulation - 3 Periods replicative crossover design to extent Cmax acceptance limits.

In Literature and FDA-Guideline (1999) only following sequences are recommended:
RTR (2 Times R)
TRT (2 Times T)

This design was needed for individual bioequivalence (because you need the CVintra of the Reference and the Test Formulation.

To extend the acceptance limit (average bioequivalence) we only need the intrasubject CV of the reference formulation. Therefore it is more sufficient to use only sequences with '2 Times R', for example

Proposal 1:
TRR
RRT

or

Proposal 2:
TRT
RTR
TRR

The answers in the comments to the EMA-Guideline allow this design.

Is there any statistical disadvantage of that design ?

Proposal 2 is the better one. But it is possible to use proposal 1, or are the disadvantages to big ?

Thank you for you response in advance


Edit: Category changed. [Helmut]
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2011-08-18 18:17
(5428 d 21:03 ago)

@ beman
Posting: # 7283
Views: 4,855
 

 2 Formulation 3 Periods replicative design - sequences

Dear beman!

❝ In Literature and FDA-Guideline (1999) only following sequences are recommended:

❝ RTR (2 Times R)

❝ TRT (2 Times T)


… and some of others: TRR|RTT, TRR|RTR|RRT, TRT|RTR|TRR|RTT

❝ This design was needed for individual bioequivalence (because you need the CVintra of the Reference and the Test Formulation.


Right.

❝ Proposal 1:

❝ TRR

❝ RRT


❝ or


❝ Proposal 2:

❝ TRT

❝ RTR

❝ TRR


Don’t forget the partially replicated design TRR|RTR|RRT quoted in FDA's progesterone guidance.

❝ Proposal 2 is the better one. But it is possible to use proposal 1, or are the disadvantages to big ?


I would also say that #2 is better, because in #1 you never dose T in period 2. Imagine a (rather hypothetical) situation where you have a large period effect in period 2. Both designs are not balanced, but the bias on the treatment effect would be larger in #1 as compared to #2.

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
beman
☆    

2011-08-22 17:10
(5424 d 22:10 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 7285
Views: 4,743
 

 2 Formulation 3 Periods replicative design - sequences

❝ ❝ Proposal 2:

❝ ❝ TRT

❝ ❝ RTR

❝ ❝ TRR


❝ Don’t forget the partially replicated design TRR|RTR|RRT quoted in FDA's progesterone guidance.


You are right. Sorry, it was a typing error, i mean RRT instead of TRT.

Thanks

Beman
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,570 registered users;
288 visitors (0 registered, 288 guests [including 18 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:21 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

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