2 Groups model FDA [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2013-04-17 15:10 (4449 d 08:58 ago) – Posting: # 10427
Views: 47,376

Gents!

❝ ❝ But honestly, group x treatment?? I'd rather not go down that road. I hope you do not make precedence.


❝ Not my invention. See this post for the reference.


I have another 'better' one (from a Letter of FDA, Barbara M. Davit)! :cool:

" ... the following statistical model should be used when analyzing data from a multiple group bioequivalence study:

Group
Sequence
Treatment
Subject(nested within Group*Sequence)
Period(nested within Group)
Group-by-Sequence Interaction (sic!)
Group-by-Treatment Interaction


Subject(nested within Group*Sequence) is a random effect and all other factors are fixed effects. ..."

Enormous effect(s) :-D.

BTW: Helmut, how had you planned the evaluation of the second stage, if it would be necessary?

BTW2: In context of a 2-Stage design, also a 2-group design with groups here called stage, the mighty oracle prohibit us the Group-by-Treatment Interaction! From the EMA Q&A Rev.7 :
"Conclusion ... A term for a formulation*stage interaction should not be fitted."

BTW3: NOL = no objection letter ?

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,674 registered users;
16 visitors (0 registered, 16 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:09 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical researches can be divided into two sorts:
those who think that meta is better and those
who believe that pooling is fooling.    Stephen Senn

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