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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-10-21 16:51 (4625 d 18:34 ago) – Posting: # 11719
Views: 29,814

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
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
139 visitors (0 registered, 139 guests [including 19 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:25 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Science is simply common sense at its best that is,
rigidly accurate in observation, and
merciless to fallacy in logic.    Thomas Henry Huxley

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