Change to Method B? [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-10-21 16:51 (4263 d 04:32 ago) – Posting: # 11719
Views: 26,125

Hi Kumar,

❝ We have back calculated the CV from the available literature it is ~21%. And the sample size is 28 for stage I.


OK, that’s not too bad (106 simulations, exact power):Methods B and C have already a high chance to show BE in the first stage. If the sponsor is wary about EMA’s acceptance, consider changing to Method B. If you want to change to a conventional 2×2 cross-over – contrary to what I said before – there shouldn’t be ethical issues (power >90%). If the actual CV is 25%, power would still be 80.7%. Up to you. On the other hand, if the CV is higher than 25% or you have drop-outs the producer’s risk increases.

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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,673 registered users;
41 visitors (0 registered, 41 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 21:23 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Reach for the stars,
even if you have to stand on a cactus.    Susan Longacre

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