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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-10-21 16:51 (4218 d 23:17 ago) – Posting: # 11719
Views: 25,507

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, 1,669 registered users;
88 visitors (0 registered, 88 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:08 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

We should not speak so that it is possible
for the audience to understand us,
but so that it is impossible
for them to misunderstand us.    Quintilian

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