s2wR != mse, FDA != EMA [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2017-03-06 14:40 (3385 d 19:50 ago) – Posting: # 17138
Views: 23,434

Hi VStus,

❝ ❝ But s2wR = MSE is not necessarily true in all cases, although it is in many cases a reasonable assumption.

❝ And s2wR != s2wT in most cases. Maybe that's the reason why 2x3x3 design is still so popular. It's not possible to assess s2wT...


No agency asks for s²wT in the context of RSABE or ABEL (the FDA’s RSABE for NTIDs is another story but requires a 4-period full replicate anyhow). Hence, why should one report it? :-D
I never understood why one would opt for the partial replicate. Does this equation hold?

Partial replicate = lack of statistical knowledge + “we want only three periods” + given in the FDA’s guidance / the EMA’ Q&A-document (as an example)?


IMHO, at least in pilot studies full replicates are preferable (see there). I once struggled with a Romanian CRO. The sponsor decided to perform a 4-period full replicate in order to possibly end up with a smaller sample size of the pivotal study if CVwT < CVwR. The CRO refused to calculate CVwT (“… because not in accordance with the SAS-code given in the Q&A.”)… Oh boy! Only after the sponsor threatened to go with another CRO, they gave in.

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,653 posts in 4,991 threads, 1,570 registered users;
111 visitors (0 registered, 111 guests [including 25 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:31 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

To propose that poor design can be corrected by subtle analysis techniques
is contrary to good scientific thinking.    Stuart J. Pocock

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