Number of subjects

Nonmandatory Appendixes These cover a number of subjects, primarily suggested good practices and other aids in understanding the code and in designing with the code. Several current nonmanda-tory appendixes will probably become mandatoiy. 

The primary objective of a Phase I trial is to assess the safety of the drug in humans. Studies are normally conducted in healthy male volunteers, although specific categories of subject may be used in certain cases. For example, to avoid the risk of low blood pressure, subjects with mild hypertension would be more appropriate for the evaluation of antihypertensive drugs, while patients are likely to be used in the case of drugs that are expected to produce significant toxic effects (e.g. anti-cancer cytotoxic drugs). Remuneration may be offered for participation in the study. The number of subjects is normally between 10 and 100 people. 

The number of subjects planned to be enrolled, if more than one site the numbers of enrolled subjects projected for each trial site should be specified. Reason for choice of sample size include calculations of the statistical power of the trial, the level of significance to be used and the clinical justification. 

Type of Study Study Location of Objective(s) Identifier Study Report of the Study Study Design and Type of Control Test Product(s) Dosage Regimen Route of Administration Number of Subjects Healthy Subjects or Diagnosis of Patients Duration of Treatment Study Status Type of Report... 

In pharmaceutical and medical device development, clinical trials are classified into four main phases designated with Roman numerals 1,11, III and lY The various phases of development trials differ in purpose, length and number of subjects involved. Phase I trials are conducted to determine safe dose levels of a medication, treatment or product (National Institutes of Health, 2002). The main purpose is often to determine an acceptable single dosage - how much can be given without causing serious side-effects. Phase I trials will also involve studies of metabolism and bioavailabity (Pocock, 1983). The sample size of a Phase 1 clinical trial is usually small, ranging from 10-80 subjects (National Institutes of Health, 2002 Pocock, 1983). 

Often there is a desire to compare responses to multiple treatments rather than simply evaluate active against a placebo control. For instance, it may be useful to evaluate several doses or to assess a product against another marketed product. Increasing the number of treatments will increase the sample size required overall, but will also increase the number of subjects required per treatment arm because the number of statistical comparisons is larger. If all between-group comparisons are to be made, the number of statistical tests increases dramatically as the number of treatment arms increases. With two groups, only one comparison is possible. With three groups, the number... 

The larger the benefit, the smaller the number of subjects required to show statistical significance. For example, if a herbal supplement is expected to produce a 5% lowering of the blood cholesterol level vs placebo, this will require many more subjects than a study evaluating the effects of a drug that is expected to produce a 50% reduction vs placebo. 

Statistical power is an expression of the risk that the researcher is willing to accept that the study will fail to find significance when an effect is truly present. Usually the number of subjects utilized will provide 80% or 90%... 

One of the main determinants of the number of subjects required to reach the desired statistical power is the precision of the measurement tool utilized. More precise measurements will reduce the number of subjects required. As an example, if a study is being conducted to assess the influence of a dietary supplement on body fat, several measurement tools could be used to assess this outcome. These tools range from low levels of cost and precision (e.g. skinfold measurements) to moderate levels (e.g. bioelectrical impedance) to high levels of cost and precision (dual x-ray absorptiometry - DXA). A study that uses skinfold measurements to measure the outcome will require many more subjects than one which employs DXA. Therefore, it is often less expensive in total to utilize a more expensive measurement tool, because the more precise tool will allow the study to have sufficient power with a smaller number of subjects. 

The number of study sites to be used for a clinical trial depends on the characteristics and number of subjects that need to be recruited. Often, a sufficient number of participants cannot be enrolled from a single site, especially if the study inclusion criteria are restrictive and the timeframe for recruitment is limited. In order to complete the study within a reasonable period of time, an inclusion of multiple research centers is often necessary (Chow and Liu, 1998). The selection of study sites depends on several factors including ... 

Obviously, the greater the number of subjects studied, the larger the cost. Nevertheless, having too few subjects may lead to inconclusive results, requiring that the study be repeated. Another important consideration is the availability of qualified participants. If the inclusion and exclusion criteria are very restrictive, the cost of recruiting subjects may exceed that of the actual testing. In pharmaceutical development trials, it is not unusual to see recruitment budgets of US 500- 1000 per randomized subject. Thus, for a Phase III development study with several hundred participants, often more than US 500 000 in cost is allotted to efforts to identify qualified subjects who are interested in participation. 

Clinical trials are costly to conduct, and results are often critical to the commercial viability of a phytochemical product. Seemingly minor decisions, such as which measurement tool to use or a single entry criterion, can produce thousands of dollars in additional costs. Likewise, a great deal of time, effort and money can be saved by having experts review the study protocol to provide feedback regarding ways to improve efficiency, reduce subject burden and insure that the objectives are being met in the most scientifically sound and cost-effective manner possible. In particular, I recommend that an expert statistician is consulted regarding sample size and power and that the assumptions used in these calculations are reviewed carefully with one or more clinicians. It is not uncommon to see two studies with very similar objectives, which vary by two-fold in the number of subjects under study. Often this can be explained by differences in the assumptions employed in the sample size calculations. 

Large variations in responses make the data difficult to interpret, particularly when comparing different treatments, and thus this approach may require the use of a large number of subjects to observe possible statistical differences. Finally, the degree of polarity of the compound of interest is another important factor to keep in mind since that can affect its location in the CMs and in turn its possible exchanges with other high-density and low-density lipoproteins present in the bloodstream. 

In the column heading you see N=, which represents the number of subjects in the given column population. 

PLACE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SUBJECTS IN N3. select count(distinct subjid) format = 3. into n3 from treat where trtcd ne. ... 

Within each visit window, the number of deaths, survival probability, and associated confidence intervals are obtained whenever a death occurs. The values are retained and are output to the data set once per visit at the last record, where the number of subjects remaining at risk is captured in the left variable from the ProductLimitEstimates data set. 

The number of subjects needed so that a study is likely to have an acceptable statistical power depends on a number of factors, including analytical parameters (precision, etc.), subject selection and control, and protocol design (cross-over, parallel). 

The average increase in rCMR after THC administration was less in marijuana users than in controls, and users had lower cerebellar metabolism than the controls at baseline [8]. Thus the cerebellum shows the greatest metabolic increase in response to acute THC and responds to chronic marijuana exposure with a decrease in baseline CMR. Habitual users but not controls responded to THC administration with increased rCMR in prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, and basal ganglia. In contrast to the robust effects of THC on relative rCMR, changes in global CMR in response to THC were quite variable, with increases, decreases, and no changes seen in equal numbers of subjects. There was also variability in subjective effects, which were pleasurable for most subjects but either minimal or unpleasant (anxiety or paranoia) for others. 

Andrea Cipriani et al., 2009. The calculations are simple and straightforward. Table 3 of The Lancet article reports response rates for head-to-head comparisons of different antidepressants, along with the number of subjects on which each response rate was based. I merely extracted the response rates in all of the head-to-head comparisons of an SSRI with an NDRI, multiplied each response rate by the number of subjects it was based on, summed the product and divided... 

Because of the relatively small number of subjects with the deficient phenotype, the study may... 

The best human data available on immune response involve small numbers of subjects and lack of adequate controls. Additional studies on immune function parameters in both children and adults are needed to verify or refute the lack of immunotoxicify seen in humans to date. These studies should include a well defined set of immunologic assays in order to facilitate comparisons between studies. 

---