Smog
☆    

Russia,
2016-03-24 20:37
(2925 d 23:24 ago)

Posting: # 16136
Views: 5,412
 

 Pilot study assessment [Study As­sess­ment]

Hello to everybody!

I have a little question regarding the pilot study (2x2x2, 11 subjects). The point estimate for the Cmax was 116.97. CI is: LL 95,28, UL 146,01 in the pilot study. The drug is not HVD.
Is there any sence to go forward with pivotal study in case of such GMR? If so which GMR to use: 0,95 or 1,1697?

Thank you in advance for your help.
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2016-03-25 16:53
(2925 d 03:08 ago)

@ Smog
Posting: # 16140
Views: 4,579
 

 Nasty PE ⇒ reformulate…

Hi Smog,

❝ The point estimate for the Cmax was 116.97. CI is: LL 95,28, UL 146,01 in the pilot study.


Hhm, I get \(PE = \sqrt{0.9528 \times 1.4601} = 1.1795 \; {\color{Red} \neq 1.697} \). Are your numbers correct?

❝ The drug is not HVD.


Correct if we believe that the CV is “carved in stone”. ;-)
By means of R / package PowerTOST:

library(PowerTOST)
n  <- c(6, 5) # my assumption: 6 in one sequence and 5 in the other
LL <- 0.9528
UL <- 1.4601
PE <- sqrt(LL*UL)
CV <- CVfromCI(lower=LL, upper=UL, design="2x2x2", n=n)
cat(sprintf("%s %.2f%%%s", "estimated CV:", 100*CV, "\n"))
estimated CV: 27.70%

But the CV is an estimate and its precision depends on the sample size. The “true” CV might as well cross the border of a HVD(P). Let’s assume a “producer’s risk” of 20%:

CVupper <- CVCL(CV=CV, df=sum(n)-2, side="upper", alpha=0.20)[["upper CL"]]
cat(sprintf("%s %.2f%%%s", "upper CL of the CV:", 100*CVupper, "\n"))
upper CL of the CV: 36.29%


❝ Is there any sence to go forward with pivotal study in case of such GMR? If so which GMR to use: 0,95 or 1,1697?


0.95 is already outside the 90% CI of the pilot study! The 90% CI means that the true (but unknown) T/R-ratio lies with p ≤ 0.05 below the lower CL and with p ≤ 0.05 above the upper CL. In other words your odds would be less than 1:20. Very bad idea. See also Fuglsang1 for the transition from pilot to pivotal studies in BE and some old stuff2 for background.
On the other hand, if you assume that both the PE and CV from the pilot are “true” values sample sizes would be extreme (274 for 80% power in a 2×2×2 for ABE and still 136 in a 2×2×4 for ABEL). I would be very wary to proceed. Think about reformulation.


  1. Fuglsang A. Pilot and Repeat Trials as Development Tools Associated with Demonstration of Bioequivalence. AAPS J. 2015;17(3):678–83. doi:10.1208/s12248-015-9744-6.
  2. Browne RH. On the use of a pilot sample for sample size determination. Stat Med. 1995;14(17):1933–40. doi:10.1002/sim.4780141709.

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
ElMaestro
★★★

Denmark,
2016-03-27 20:07
(2923 d 00:54 ago)

@ Smog
Posting: # 16143
Views: 4,246
 

 Pilot study assessment

Hi Smog,

❝ I have a little question regarding the pilot study (2x2x2, 11 subjects). The point estimate for the Cmax was 116.97. CI is: LL 95,28, UL 146,01 in the pilot study. The drug is not HVD.

❝ Is there any sence to go forward with pivotal study in case of such GMR? If so which GMR to use: 0,95 or 1,1697?


Those were wise words from Helmut even though he is quoting some very dubious sources :-D. I am a tiny bit less certain than he is, I must admit; like Helmut I am also leaning towards reformulation. Using a GMR of 0.95 for sample size calculation is functionally -in terms of sample size- exactly the same as using 1/0.95 (=1.053) and that is nicely within your confidence interval and could perhaps be used. Eyeballing it, the chance that the true GMR is 1.053 or better appears smaller than the chance (risk) that the true GMR is completely outside the acceptance range. So chances are not much in your favour, I'd say.
But I am not at all very certain about anything in this case.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
81 visitors (0 registered, 81 guests [including 13 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:02 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Nothing shows a lack of mathematical education more
than an overly precise calculation.    Carl Friedrich Gauß

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