Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2014-05-26 19:50
(3613 d 20:33 ago)

Posting: # 13007
Views: 4,332
 

 FDA: Mini-study (retesting) [Outliers]

Dear all,

at the last two conferences in Budapest I discussed the issue of retesting subjects with (former) emplo­yees of the FDA.
  • The FDA discourages exclusion of outliers (especially of the “no profile” type) in 2×2 crossover studies.
  • Performing “mini-studies” (aka retesting) was never an official recommendation. The commonly quoted sizes (at least six subjects or 20% of the main study – which ever is larger) are also an urban myth.
  • The FDA allowed exclusion of outlying subjects only if
    • retesting was already stated in the protocol as some kind of contingency plan,
    • any post hoc procedure was not accepted, and
    • not more than 1–2 outliers were excluded.
From time to time people send me data desperately wanting me to “safe” their studies. Sorry folks, there is no free lunch. Observations:
  • I never (!) saw a protocol where re-testing was planned.
  • Some studies were quite large (60–80 subjects). When asked why they didn’t opt for reference-scaling the answer was “FDA’s guidance requires a two-way crossover!” It turned out that high vari­ability is well documented in the literature (well, that’s why the sample size was large). The FDA started updating their product specific guidances (allowing RSABE) in 2010. The one for this product was from 2007. Unlike for the EMA (where a clinical justification is needed), there are no problems expected using RSABE for both AUC and Cmax.
  • Even if no scaling is intended, a fully replicated design could rule a product failure and explore a poten­tial subject-by-formulation interaction. Much easier to deal with “no profiles”. That was already stated in the 2001 biostat’s guidance.
  • Given the advanced technology in bioanalytics accessible today – requiring much smaller sampling volumes than a decade ago – the main obstacle (total blood loss limited to ~500 mL) in many cases is not issue any more. It is true that more periods increase the chance of drop-outs – but the loss in power is smaller than most people believe. Example: T/R 0.95, CV 35%, target power 90%, ex­pected drop-out rate 5% / washout phase.
      2×2 cross-over: Dose 70, complete 67+, power 89.30%+.
      2×2×4 replicate: Dose 36, comlete 30+, power 86.18%+.
    If the drop-out rate is 10%, power in the replicate design would still be >80%…

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
jag009
★★★

NJ,
2014-05-27 23:52
(3612 d 16:31 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 13009
Views: 3,351
 

 FDA: Mini-study (retesting)

Hi Helmut!

Was there a meeting in Budapest recently? Did you see Laszlo E? I had dinner with him around early May and he said he will be in Budapest...

❝ ● Performing “mini-studies” (aka retesting) was never an official recommendation. The commonly quoted sizes (at least six subjects or 20% of the main study – which ever is larger) are also an urban myth.


Nope, but you can propose.

❝ ● Some studies were quite large (60–80 subjects). When asked why they didn’t opt for reference-scaling the answer was “FDA’s guidance requires a two-way crossover!” It turned out that high variability is well documented in the literature (well, that’s why the sample size was large).


You will be surprised!

❝ ● Given the advanced technology in bioanalytics accessible today – requiring much smaller sampling volumes than a decade ago...


I've talked to some labs who still insisted "We need no less than 4 mL sample, otherwise we can't guarantee that we can do repeats"

John
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,985 posts in 4,823 threads, 1,653 registered users;
46 visitors (0 registered, 46 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:23 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