IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bot/rivsta/v77y2017i1p65-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

ample size recommendation for a bioequivalent study

Author

Listed:
  • Chandrasekhar Bhupathi

    (Science College, Osmania University, Hyderabad - India)

  • Venakata HaraGopal Vajjha

    (Science College, Osmania University, Hyderabad - India)

Abstract

There are clear guidelines and suggestions on the sample size and power calculation from health authorities (HA) for Bio equivalence (BE) studies in Healthy volunteers (HV). The suggested power is at least 80\% and type 1 error is 5\%. In real life situations, the clinical trials plan with more than 80\%, giving rise to larger sample size. The increased power means more subjects, more wastage of time and more resources to complete the study, resulting in more money spent. This paper attempts to show how much reduction in the sample size can be achieved without affecting the scientific validity of the study and also the brief summary on the overall effect of reduced sample size on resources (subjects, time, blood and cost). We executed simulations in order to show the impact on the power and the 2 one sided confidence interval approach to show the study equivalence or otherwise. For illustration purpose, a couple of 2 period cross over studies were considered. 100 simulations were executed with different sample sizes to compare with the original results.

Suggested Citation

  • Chandrasekhar Bhupathi & Venakata HaraGopal Vajjha, 2017. "ample size recommendation for a bioequivalent study," Statistica, Department of Statistics, University of Bologna, vol. 77(1), pages 65-71.
    • Handle: RePEc:bot:rivsta:v:77:y:2017:i:1:p:65-71
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bot:rivsta:v:77:y:2017:i:1:p:65-71. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Giovanna Galatà (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dsbolit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.