(edited by mahmoud-teaima on 2017-10-24 20:44)
Posting: # 17916
Salam to all,
Pease, advise me about what is the best T/R ratio to be used for estimating sample size for a BE study of NTI drugs? knowing that the GL to be followed set the 90% CI acceptance range to (90-111.11) for Cmax if a "2x2x2" design be followed.
I'm confused to use T/R ratio of 0.95 or 0.975?!
Mahmoud Teaima, PhD.
Posting: # 17917
» Pease, advise me about what is the best T/R ratio to be used for estimating sample size for a BE study of NTI drugs? knowing that the GL to be followed set the 90% CI acceptance range to (90-111.11) for Cmax if a "2x2x2" design be followed.
» I'm confused to use T/R ratio of 0.95 or 0.975?!
Both are fine. Note that the FDA requires tighter batch release spec’s for NTIDs. Hence, in function
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Posting: # 17920
» Both are fine. Note that the FDA requires tighter batch release spec’s for NTIDs. Hence, in function
This strays away from the usually stringent scientific principles that this forum usually promotes, doesn't it?
We plug in the GMR that we think/predict/guess is a realistic and relevant indicator of relative product performance, possibly with a buffer to factor in worst cases. Habits, experience and gut feeling.
There is no divine aspect of NTID's, as far as I know, that makes them easier to copy than non-NTID's from a strict formulation perspective so I don't know if the default is much science based.
Although I am sure 0.975 is condoned by the guy in the Armani suit. He would definitely also like it for non-NTID's.
Perhaps all this boils down to the use of anything "default" in a power calculation. It is extremely handy. And it is a bit dangerous. Perhaps the world would be a better place altogether if such functions did not assume defaults for CV and GMR and designs - this would force users to actually *** badum tssss *** think just a little bit about the values they plug in before deriving a power.
OK, rant over, I'll take my medicine now. Stage III syphilis...
"(...) targeted cancer therapies will benefit fewer than 2 percent of the cancer patients they’re aimed at. That reality is often lost on consumers, who are being fed a steady diet of winning anecdotes about miracle cures." New York Times (ed.), June 9, 2018.
Posting: # 17921
...to be true: I would support discouraging the use of defaults without any knowledge on the actual products (dissolution, pharmaceutical quality etc.). Planning a BE-study should involve that you know that the "correct" GMR / sample size is hindsight knowledge and one way or the other there is a risk to loose money (too many volunteers, too little power to conclude BE), one way ore the other...
Kindest regards, nobody
Posting: # 17922
Dear Öberster Größter Meister, Nobody!
» ... Planning a BE-study should involve that you know that the "correct" GMR / sample size is hindsight knowledge ...
You never know the population values of CV and/or GMR you need to have a reliable sample size estimation. You always rely on assumptions / guesses, educated or not / gut feeling or whatever else for these values. If this is scientific is left to you. Default or not .
And remember: At the end of the day the sponsor (with or without Armani suite) is always right.
I never came across with cases where the sponsor desired sample size was not "scientifically" estimated and justified.
"Power Calculation - A guess masquerading as mathematics." Stephen Senn
Remember the BOSS button in Dave's Fartssie.xls! More than once I was asked to introduce such tool in PowerTOST.
Nevertheless you may contact the Maintainer of PowerTOST and suggest changes or create an issue on http://github.com/Detlew/PowerTOST/issues. Best to suggest to abstain from all defaults including alpha=0.05 or the BE acceptance limits 0.8 ... 1.25 to force the user to think about those settings.
But be warned. It's best not to tangle that Maintainer guy without an Armani suite. May be he is biting back .