Loky do
★    

Egypt,
2021-09-23 14:54
(24 d 13:15 ago)

Posting: # 22590
Views: 487
 

 dropouts in replicate studies [Regulatives / Guidelines]

Dears,

In Replicate studies, if volunteers attend the first phase and missed the second phase (in partially or fully replicate) or the third phase in fully replicate, can they attend the last phase, especially if they could be included in statistical analysis? is it mentioned in guidelines?

Thanks in advance
dshah
★    

India/ United Kingdom,
2021-09-23 19:28
(24 d 08:40 ago)

@ Loky do
Posting: # 22591
Views: 419
 

 dropouts in replicate studies

Dear Loky do:
It is always better to ask the volunteer to complete the other period. Even if they miss one period or two period, the data can be useful in following ways:
  1. For fully replicate study- Missing a test period--> Data can be useful for Swr calculation, safety evaluation and also average BE.
  2. Fully replicate study- missing a reference period--> Useful for Swt, safety and ABE
  3. Fully replicate study--> Missing a test and reference period--> useful for ABE
  4. Partial replicate study-> missing a test period--> useful for Swr
  5. Partial replicate study--> missing a reference period--> useful for ABE.

Regards,
Dshah
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2021-09-24 11:36
(23 d 16:32 ago)

@ Loky do
Posting: # 22592
Views: 380
 

 The EMA’s ‘Data set I’ is incomplete

Hi Loky do,

» is it mentioned in guidelines?

No. However, inspect the EMA’s ‘Data set I’ (TRTR|RTRT with 77 subjects) published in the Q&A document. Although it was fabricated by David Brown of the MHRA (at that time member of the Biostatistics Working Party) in collaboration with the Pharmacokinetics Working Party, likely it reflects what regulators have seen in the past and obviously is acceptable.
The data set is incomplete with missings not only in the last period. Eight subjects ‘returned’ after missed periods:$$\small{\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
\hline
\text{Subject} & \text{Missed period(s)} & \text{Missed treatment(s)} & \text{`Returned' period} & n_\textrm{R} & n_\textrm{T} & \text{1. BE} & 2.\;CV_\textrm{wR} & 3.\;CV_\textrm{wT}\\
\hline
11 & 3 & \text{T} & 4 & 2 & 1 & + & + & -\\
20 & 3 & \text{T} & 4 & 2 & 1 & + & + & -\\
24 & 2 & \text{R} & 3 & 1 & 2 & + & - & +\\
31 & 3 & \text{R} & 4 & 1 & 2 & + & - & +\\
42 & 3 & \text{T} & 4 & 2 & 1 & + & + & -\\
67 & \text{3, 4} & \text{R, T} & - & 1 & 1 & + & - & -\\
69 & 3 & \text{T} & 4 & 2 & 1 & + & + & -\\
71 & \text{3, 4} & \text{T, R} & - & 1 & 1 & + & - & -\\\hline
& \text{2: 1, 3: 7, 4: 2} & \text{R: 4, T: 6} & &\text{2: 4, 1: 4} & \text{2: 2, 1: 6} & & & \\
\hline
\end{array}}$$I agree with Dshah’s post.
  1. For ABE – or ABEL if applicable – all subjects with at least one T and R treatment.
  2. For the estimation of \(\small{CV_\textrm{wR}}\) (required to decide whether ABEL can be applied and, if yes, calculation of the expanded limits) subjects 24, 31, 67, and 71 excluded.
  3. Since this is a fully replicated design: For the estimation of \(\small{CV_\textrm{wT}}\) (not required by agencies but useful information) subjects 11, 20, 42, 67, 69, and 71 excluded.
In the Phoenix-template #1 & #2 and in the [image]-package replicateBE #1 – #3 is performed automatically.
Example using the package’s first internal reference data set evaluated by ‘Method A’ (all effects fixed):

library(replicateBE)
method.A(data = rds01)


Relevant part of the file DS01_ABEL_MethodA.txt written to tempdir():
Sequences (design) : TRTR|RTRT (4-period full replicate)
Subjects / sequence: 39|38   (unbalanced)
Missings / sequence: 7|3     (incomplete)
Missings / period  : 0|1|7|2 (incomplete)
Subjects (total)   :  77
Subj’s with T and R:  77 (calculation of the CI)
Subj’s with two Ts :  71
Subj’s with two Rs :  73
Degrees of freedom : 217
CVwT               :  35.16%
swT                :   0.34138
CVwR               :  46.96% (reference-scaling applicable)
swR                :   0.44645
Expanded limits    :  71.23% ... 140.40% [100exp(±0.760·swR)]
Confidence interval: 107.11% ... 124.89%  pass
Point estimate     : 115.66%              pass
Mixed (CI & PE)    :                      pass


Without writing to a file:

library(replicateBE)
x           <- method.A(data = rds01, print = FALSE, details = TRUE)
# round full precision results
x[c(11:14)] <- signif(x[c(11:14)], 4)
x[c(19:21)] <- round(x[c(19:21)], 2)
print(x[c(1, 6:8, 3:5, 11, 13, 12, 14, 19:21)], row.names = FALSE) # relevant stuff reordered


   Design Sub/seq Miss/seq Miss/per  n nTT nRR CVwT(%)    swT CVwR(%)    swR CL.lo(%) CL.hi(%)  PE(%)
TRTR|RTRT   39|38      7|3  0|1|7|2 77  71  73   35.16 0.3414   46.96 0.4464   107.11   124.89 115.66

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Loky do
★    

Egypt,
2021-09-25 22:01
(22 d 06:07 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 22598
Views: 288
 

 The EMA’s ‘Data set I’ is incomplete

Thanks dears for this useful info :ok:
Activity
 Admin contact
21,731 posts in 4,544 threads, 1,543 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 04:09 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Law is mind without reason.    Aristotle

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