jag009
★★★

NJ,
2013-08-14 01:30
(4347 d 23:03 ago)

Posting: # 11272
Views: 3,508
 

 Question about Treatment Effect [General Sta­tis­tics]

Hi all,

Question. From a 3-way (T1 vs T2 vs R) study, for Cmax:
  1. A is BE to R for Cmax (Ratio ~100%; 90%CI ~94-110%; pooled CV 27%)
  2. B is not BE to R (Ratio ~121%; 90%CI ~112-131; pooled CV 27%)
  3. A significant treatment effect was observed from the PROC GLM model output.
Obviously the significant treatment effect was caused by B-R, but how do you defend it?

Thanks
John
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2013-08-14 02:53
(4347 d 21:40 ago)

@ jag009
Posting: # 11273
Views: 2,831
 

 significant ≠ relevant

Hi John,

❝ 3. A significant treatment effect was observed from the PROC GLM model output.

❝ Obviously the significant treatment effect was caused by B-R, but how do you defend it?

  1. Nothing to defend. A significant treatment effect is irrelevant in BE. Furthermore, from your data it is clear that it is caused by T2 in the analysis of the complete data set. Since the 90% CI of T1/R included 100% this treatment was not significantly different from R (only T2: the CI did not contain 100%).
  2. Drop Mr Schuirmann an [image] and ask for his 2004 presentation. Maybe it gives you an idea which kind of evaluation FDA prefers (complete model or dropping T2 in your case)

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
23,428 posts in 4,929 threads, 1,694 registered users;
47 visitors (0 registered, 47 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:34 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

If I’d observed all the rules,
I’d never have got anywhere.    Marilyn Monroe

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