Helmut ★★★ ![]() ![]() Vienna, Austria, 2006-05-26 18:02 (6912 d 07:59 ago) Posting: # 139 Views: 9,881 |
|
Dear all, since at least the Danish Authority requires a narrower acceptance range for some drugs in the following you may find a table giving sample sizes for the acceptance range of 0.90-1.11 (cave: the upper limit is 1/0.9=1.1111..., except for Canada, where the upper limit is set to 1.12). Sample sizes were calculated for an expected deviation of -5% from the reference (80% and 90% power) according to approximations (which can easily implemented e.g. in a speadsheet for any combination of power and deviation) given in [1] Hauschke D, Steinijans VW, Diletti E and M Burke Sample Size Determination for Bioequivalence Assessment Using a Multiplicative Model J Pharmacokin Biopharm 20/5, 557-561, 1992and [2] S-C Chow and H Wang On Sample Size Calculation in Bioequivalence Trials J Pharmacokin Pharmacodyn 28/2, 155-169, 2001 Errata: J Pharmacokin Pharmacodyn 29/2, 101-102, 2002Approximate sample sizes differ slightly from exact values given by [3] Diletti E, Hauschke D and VW Steinijans Sample size determination: Extended tables for the multiplicative model and bioequivalence ranges of 0.9 to 1.11 and 0.7 to 1.43 Int J Clin Pharm Ther Toxicol 30/Suppl.1, S59-62, 1992 and[4] B Oloffson StudySize2.01 CreoStat HB, 2006
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ If using approximations you should allow for a safety margin; sample sizes are sometimes a little larger ( overlined ) than exact ones, except for small CVs (underlined ) where the sample size is underestimated. Hopefully your narrow therapeutic index drug shows low variability - which is often the case; otherwise it will be very difficult to demonstrate BE in a conventional 2x2 cross-over study... — 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 |
Helmut ★★★ ![]() ![]() Vienna, Austria, 2008-04-04 18:13 (6233 d 07:48 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 1764 Views: 7,428 |
|
Dear all, I updated the sample size table (expected deviation of -5% from the reference, 80% and 90% power) according to exact results given in Table 5.3, [1] which are matched by results obtained by R-code given in this post with modifications[2] and David Dubin's FARTSSIE[3] (see this post). +-----------+-----------+-----------+ The code (download link) was tested in versions 2.6.2, 2.5.1, 1.9.1, and 1.9.0. ####################################################################### You can modify the code to your needs: a (one-sided) alpha - needed in TOST / 90% CI (to obtain sample sizes for a 95% CI as needed for NTIDs by ANVISA, set a <- 0.025 )theta1 lower acceptance limit, where theta2=1/theta1 target set of target powers; if you want to get additionally e.g., 70% power, use: assign("target",c(0.7,0.8,0.9)) CV set of CVs; each value gives one line of outputlimit upper limit of sample size; useful if set to a number lower than 500 to get the power obtained with a maximum feasible sample size[1] D Hauschke, VW Steinijans and I Pigeot Bioequivalence Studies in Drug Development: Methods and Applications Wiley, New York, pp 118 (2007)[3] D Dubins FARTSSIE v1.4 Toronto, Ontario, Canada (2008) download link— 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 |