Log in
Register|
Amandine ● 2009-06-04 14:31 (5816 d 10:03 ago) Posting: # 3820 Views: 16,288 |
|
|
Dear all, We are preparing a 4-period single-dose BE study under both fed and fasting conditions (as described in the new draft BE/BA EMEA guidance: Test fast/Ref fast/Test fed/Ref fed). However, the product we are developing has a great food effect and a high within-subject variability in fed conditions (not under fasting conditions). Our concern is:
Do you confirm the increase of residual variability in such a study and the difficulties to prove bioequivalence under fasting conditions? Thank you in advance for your answers. Best regards. Amandine |
|
Helmut ★★★   Vienna, Austria, 2009-06-04 14:55 (5816 d 09:39 ago) @ Amandine Posting: # 3821 Views: 14,851 |
|
|
Dear Amandine! ❝ We are preparing a 4-period single-dose BE study under both fed and fasting conditions (as described in the new draft BE/BA EMEA guidance: Test fast/Ref fast/Test fed/Ref fed). You know that a draft is a draft is a draft.  At the EUFEPS-workshop Kamal Midha and myself strongly argued against the suggested design. Below my comments I have sent to EMEA in January 2009. It should be noted that in a four-period single dose crossover design study (both products fed and fasted) treatment effects and food effects are massively confounded and no unbiased estimates can be obtained. — Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! ![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png) Helmut Schütz ![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png) The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes |
|
d_labes ★★★ Berlin, Germany, 2009-06-10 12:10 (5810 d 12:24 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 3840 Views: 14,655 |
|
|
Dear Helmut, ❝ An alternative to two different studies [...] a 2-sequence, 4-period design of following type would avoid confounding issues: ❝ ❝ ❝ In such a design treatments in periods 1 and 2 can be compared in fasted state and in periods 3 and 4 in fed state as a conventional cross-over. ❝ Additionally What exactly You mean with "evaluated as a paired design"? — Regards, Detlew |
|
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2009-06-23 16:38 (5797 d 07:57 ago) @ d_labes Posting: # 3894 Views: 14,630 |
|
|
Dear D. Labes, welcome back from Salzburg! ❝ What exactly You mean with "evaluated as a paired design"? Well, with the proposed design one avoids confounding issues, but you are right that one must assume lacking period effects! This may sound weird in the first place, but is regularily used in designs where a single dose phase is followed by a steady state phase in order to assess accumulation: AUCtau (MD) vs. AUCinf (SD). In my experience nobody sets up the study in such a way that in ½ of the subjects the study is started with the multiple dose phase first. Any potential period effects in such a design are ignored as well. — 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 |
|
Ohlbe ★★★ France, 2010-03-10 15:27 (5537 d 08:08 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 4889 Views: 13,951 |
|
|
Dear Helmut, dear all, ❝ In such a design treatments in periods 1 and 2 can be compared in fasted state and in periods 3 and 4 in fed state as a conventional cross-over. ❝ Additionally Just as a matter of curiosity (and I know there are other difficulties with 4-period trials, such as a higher risk of drop-out). To avoid the problem of assumptions regarding period effects, discussed by D.Labes and Helmut, what would you think of a 4-period trial with the following sequences:
The idea would then be to analyse the data as suggested by Helmut (as two usual 2x2 trials, one for fasted, one for fed) as if there were two groups of subjects in the trial (just like in a large trial when the subjects have to be split due to limited capacities of the facilities), and then to do the "paired design (with high power, but avoiding confounding issues)", without the problem of the sequence effect. Practically there would certainly be precautions to be taken, such as housing separately the fed and fasting subjects, to avoid confusions (and I wouldn't like to be fasting, and to smell the eggs and bacon of the other guys  ), but would it make any sense on a statistical point of view, or is my idea complete nonsense ?Regards Ohlbe — Regards Ohlbe |
|
Dr_Dan ★★ Germany, 2010-03-11 16:50 (5536 d 06:45 ago) @ Ohlbe Posting: # 4897 Views: 13,902 |
|
|
Dear all If the drug has a great food effect and a high within-subject variability in fed conditions but not under fasting conditions I would suggest to do two studies: Fasting: two way cross-over study Fed: replicate study Advantage: For the fasted study you will need less subjects and you will have less drop-outs Kind regards Dan — Kind regards and have a nice day Dr_Dan |
|
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2010-03-11 17:39 (5536 d 05:55 ago) @ Dr_Dan Posting: # 4898 Views: 14,022 |
|
|
Dear Dan! ❝ […] I would suggest to do two studies: ❝ Fasting: two way cross-over study ❝ Fed: replicate study Right (that’s a ‘need to know’).* But EMA is interested in the comparison of Tfed vs. Tfasted and Rfed vs. Rfasted as well (that’s the ‘nice to know’ part). * If you run two 2×2 studies you can perform such a comparison only between these studies - which is lacking power.Therefore EMA stated in the draft GL: In cases where information is required in both the fed and fasted states, it is preferable to conduct a four-period single dose crossover design study (both products fed and fasted) rather than conducting two separate bioequivalence studies in fed and fasted state, respectively. In a four-period crossover design study, the food effect on test and reference product can be evaluated which is not the case when conducting two separate two-period, two-sequence single dose crossover design studies under fasting and fed conditions, respectively. In addition to the bioequivalence evaluation of test/reference in fasting and in fed state, the food effect can be presented for test and reference, i.e. the ratio food/fasting and 90% confidence interval for test and reference, respectively. (my emphases) Of course the text in red in nonsense – such a comparison is just based on a parallel design. If the usual precautions (polymorphism, etc.) are followed in designing these studies, unbiased estimates and CIs may be obtained.Following comments (p. 78-83) on the draft this paragraph was simplified; the final GL states only: In cases where information is required in both the fed and fasted states, it is acceptable to conduct either two separate two-way cross-over studies or a four-way cross-over study. (my emphases)
— 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 |
|
Dr_Dan ★★ Germany, 2010-03-12 09:49 (5535 d 13:46 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 4900 Views: 13,899 |
|
|
Dear Helmut You are a statistician, I am a project manager. The purpose of a bioequivalence study is not to describe the full pharmacokinetics (including food effect) of a drug entity but to detect differences between galenic formulations. Since it is acceptable to conduct either two separate two-way cross over-studies or a four-way cross-over study in cases where information is required in both the fed and fasted states I would always suggest to perform two separate two-way cross over-studies. I totally agree that from a scientific point of view the four-way cross-over study is much more interesting but from a practical (generic company's) point of view you should prefer the other option. Kind regards Dan — Kind regards and have a nice day Dr_Dan |
|
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2010-03-12 12:35 (5535 d 10:59 ago) @ Dr_Dan Posting: # 4905 Views: 13,890 |
|
|
Dear Dan, no, you got me wrong. I was always opposing the 4-way study; reasons:
❝ I totally agree that from a scientific point of view the four-way cross-over study is much more interesting but from a practical (generic company's) point of view you should prefer the other option. Almost. I can understand why EMA suggested a 4-way study in the first place. If you perform the comparison between the fasted and fed studies, the confidence intervals will be quite large. The 4-way study would overcome this problem. But since it is only a 'nice to know' term, no more restrictions in the final GL. But: I would expect that EMA will ask for such a comparison. So plan the two studies as if they are two treatment arms in a parallel design. — 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 |
|
boonchai_l ☆ Thailand, 2010-05-24 13:53 (5462 d 10:41 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 5368 Views: 13,642 |
|
|
Dear All, According to above recommendations for 4-way crossover study, I am a little bit weird because we were planning to conduct at least two ANOVA tables from only one trial. This is a possible example.
Unlike bioequivalence study, it is for proving equivalence. So the F and ANOVA are not the answer to prove equivalence BUT the thing everyone needs to know is whether 90%CI is in 80-125%. Best Regards, BL |
|
GSTATS ☆ India, 2010-06-08 23:52 (5447 d 00:43 ago) (edited on 2010-06-09 16:01) @ boonchai_l Posting: # 5482 Views: 13,515 |
|
|
Dear BL, For four way crossover design with following sequences Tfasted Rfasted Tfed RfedWe don't need to built many ANOVA. What you can do is add diet(fed or fast) as factor in your ANOVA and accordingly modify other factors. Then using repeated statement in PROC mixed calculate residual variability for two diets from which intra subject variabilty under fed and fasted state can be calculated separately. And for comparisons like Tfasted vs Rfasted, Tfed vs Rfed , use estimate statement which will provide estimated difference with confidence intervals. And for other comparisons like Tfasted vs Tfed etc. we can calculate ratios from LSMeans obtained through model. But problem with this design, as HS said, is ❝ The variability in fed state may be different to fasted state. Since you have to power the study for the 'weakest' arm, the 4-way study may need more treatments than two 2×2 studies. But design is good replacement for two or more studies if there is not much difference in variabilty of drug under fed and fasted state. Regards, GSTATS http://www.gstatsolutions.com/Medical%20Research.html — Let Noble Thoughts come from Every Side: RIG VEDA |
Ing. Helmut Schütz