Bebac user
☆    

Egypt,
2023-09-09 08:34
(522 d 16:35 ago)

Posting: # 23713
Views: 3,873
 

 Amlodipine/Valsartan [Design Issues]

The combination of Amlodipine and valsartan was published as two periods crossover but after checking the variability of Valsartan, it had more than 30%. Therefore, should I in those cases design this study as replicated or un-replicated ?
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2023-09-12 08:48
(519 d 16:21 ago)

@ Bebac user
Posting: # 23717
Views: 3,264
 

 Amlodipine/Valsartan

Hi Bebac user,

❝ The combination of Amlodipine and valsartan was published as two periods crossover but after checking the variability of Valsartan, it had more than 30%. Therefore, should I in those cases design this study as replicated or un-replicated?


There is no product-specific guidance of the EMA and the FDA recommends 2×2×2 crossovers (fasting and fed). Any replicated design can be assessed for (conventional, unscaled) average bioequivalence. However, if you aim at reference-scaling, I would be wary to base the sample size on the CVw of a 2×2×2 design because the CVwR is unknown (see this article).

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
Kumarnaidu2
☆    

India,
2023-12-06 10:36
(434 d 13:32 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 23781
Views: 2,643
 

 Amlodipine/Valsartan

Dear All,

For the product like Valsartan + Amlodipine or Telmisartan + Amlodipine, is it possible to plan a analysis with 3 way design for Valsartan/Telmisartan and 2 way design for Amlodipine in same study.
For e.g. if we plan a 3 way Partial replicate in 48 subjects (RTR/TRR/RRT). For Val/Telm, sample size will be 48 (All three period) and for Amlodipine, sample size will be 32 (First two period and with sequence RTR and TRR only). Is there any statistical issues with such design?
I know the ideal way is to analyse both Val and Aml in same way.
dshah
★★  

India,
2023-12-06 17:49
(434 d 06:19 ago)

@ Kumarnaidu2
Posting: # 23785
Views: 2,650
 

 Amlodipine/Valsartan

Hello Kumarnaidu2!

❝ For e.g. if we plan a 3 way Partial replicate in 48 subjects (RTR/TRR/RRT). For Val/Telm, sample size will be 48 (All three period) and for Amlodipine, sample size will be 32 (First two period and with sequence RTR and TRR only). Is there any statistical issues with such design?"


I believe that for Amlodipine the ISCV would be LT 30%, so by default the ABE calculation becomes applicable. So what advantages would be there to have such statistical plan?
Further- analysis of Amlodipine would be required to link any AE for last period. And if it is analyzed, what can be the justification for not using in PK stat?

Regards,
Divyen
Kumarnaidu2
☆    

India,
2023-12-07 03:42
(433 d 20:26 ago)

@ dshah
Posting: # 23786
Views: 2,659
 

 Amlodipine/Valsartan

Hello dshah

❝ I believe that for Amlodipine the ISCV would be LT 30%, so by default the ABE calculation becomes applicable. So what advantages would be there to have such statistical plan?

❝ Further- analysis of Amlodipine would be required to link any AE for last period. And if it is analyzed, what can be the justification for not using in PK stat?


The reported ISCV for Amlodipine is around 9 to 12%.
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2023-12-07 10:01
(433 d 14:07 ago)

@ Kumarnaidu2
Posting: # 23787
Views: 2,644
 

 Use all data and avoid the partial replicate design for the FDA

Hi Kumarnaidu,

❝ For the product like Valsartan + Amlodipine or Telmisartan + Amlodipine, is it possible to plan a analysis with 3 way design for Valsartan/Telmisartan and 2 way design for Amlodipine in same study.

❝ For e.g. if we plan a 3 way Partial replicate in 48 subjects (RTR/TRR/RRT).

I guess you are aiming at reference-scaling (Reference-scaled Average Bioequivalence [RSABE] or Average Bioequivalence with Expanding Limits [ABEL]) because valsartan and telmisartan are highly variable. In a FDC with telmisartan, S-am­lo­dipine was reported to be highly variable as well.1 Since this was a 4-period full replicate design with the FDC vs. the monos, unexpectedly the high variability was only observed in the FDC (the mono showed only CVw≈10%).

❝ For Val/Telm, sample size will be 48 (All three period) …

Based on what (CVwR, T/R-ratio, target power)? Method of scaling (FDA: RSABE, EMA and all others: ABEL)? Note that for the EMA you can expand the limits only for Cmax. Hence, the sample size would be driven by the variability of AUC.

❝ … and for Amlodipine, sample size will be 32 (First two period and with sequence RTR and TRR only).

Given what you wrote above, I can’t follow you. Which CVw and T/R-ratio did you assume, which power were you targeting, which drop­out-rate did you anticipate?

❝ Is there any statistical issues with such design?

Statistically, none. From a regulatory perspective, indeed.

❝ I know the ideal way is to analyse both Val and Aml in same way.

Exactly. As Divyen pointed out, it is ethically not acceptable to dose subjects and not use their data. Hence, use all data of both drugs in all periods in the statistical analyses.

There is a massive problem with the FDA’s RSABE in the partial replicate design if \(\small{s_\text{wR}<0.294}\) because the study has to be assessed for – con­ventional, unscaled – ABE.
  • The model with the the FDA’s covariance structure in the guidances is over-specified.2 Therefore, the optimizer may fail to converge (independent from the software) and you get no (‼) result at all.
    Remedy in SAS-lingo: Instead of FA0(2) specify FA0(1), CSH, or CS.3 Since that is not given in the guidances, state it unambigously in the SAP or – likely better – initiate a controlled correspondence with the OGD.
  • An alternative is one of the 3-period 2-sequence full replicate designs (TRT|RTR or TRR|RTT). Then you can keep the FDA’s covariance structure and there will be no issues with convergence.4
NB, there are no problems with the EMA’s ABEL (evaluated by an ANOVA with all effects fixed and assuming \(\small{s_\text{wR}^2\equiv s_\text{wT}^2}\)).


  1. Kang WY, Seong SJ, Ohk B, Gwon M-R, Kim BK, La S, Kim H-J, Cho S, Yoon Y-R, Yang DH, Lee HW. Pharmacokinetic and bioequivalence study of a telmisartan/S-amlodipine fixed-dose combination (CKD-828) formulation and coadministered telmisartan and S-amlodipine in healthy subjects. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2018; 12: 545–53. doi:10.2147/DDDT.S156492. [image] Free Full text.
  2. The model tries to estimate the within-subject variances of both reference and test (\(\small{\widehat{\sigma}_\text{wR}^2}\), \(\small{\widehat{\sigma}_\text{wT}^2}\)). Where \(\small{\widehat{\sigma}_\text{wR}^2}\) can be estimated in any reference-replicated design, \(\small{\widehat{\sigma}_\text{wT}^2}\) cannot be estimated in a partial replicate design since the test is only administered once. Even if you are lucky and the model converges, \(\small{\widehat{\sigma}_\text{wT}^2}\) will be plain nonsense. For details see this article.
  3. FA0(2) = No Diagonal Factor Analytic with two factors, FA0(1) = No Diagonal Factor Analytic with one factor, CSH = He­te­ro­genous Com­pound-Symmetry, CS = Com­pound-Symmetry.
  4. Since both treatments are replicated, the within-subject variances of reference \(\small{\widehat{\sigma}_\text{wR}^2}\) and test \(\small{\widehat{\sigma}_\text{wT}^2}\) can be estimated.


PS: Why is the bloody partial replicate design still so popular? Beyond me.

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
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,380 posts in 4,914 threads, 1,661 registered users;
27 visitors (0 registered, 27 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:09 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Skill is a function of chance.
It’s an intuitive best-use of chance situations.    Philip K. Dick

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