Deficiency letters [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-12-04 15:50 (4154 d 12:07 ago) – Posting: # 12000
Views: 24,649

Hi Kumar,

❝ […] if I want to demonstrate that type error inflation did not impact on my study then can I demonstrate this by simply showing 90% CI as well as 94.12% CI for GMR of PK parameters within the acceptance limits (80% to 125%).


This was actually the response to deficiency #1. However, post hoc switch of statistical methods (from Method C to B) is really bad practice, but the regulator insisted on it. :-(
If you expect problems (only in Europe!) plan the study already for Method B.

❝ also I am not getting how to interpret Response 2


The study’s CV was 30.65% observed in 49 subjects. Potvin’s closest table entry is for CV 30% and n1 48 (αemp 0.0494). I simulated αemp with the study’s values and got 0.0494 as well (106 simulated studies). It’s easy to calculate the confidence interval based on the binomial test. In R:

sims  <- 1e6     # number of simulated studies
alpha <- 0.0494  # empiric risk type I
binom.test(alpha*sims, sims, alternative="two.sided", conf.level=0.95)

getting:

        Exact binomial test

data:  alpha * sims and sims
number of successes = 49400, number of trials = 1e+06, p-value < 2.2e-16
alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is not equal to 0.5
95 percent confidence interval:
 0.04897608 0.04982653
sample estimates:
probability of success
                0.0494


If you run a study with Method B and still get such a weird deficiency letter – and don’t have the means to run simulations – it should be possible to look at the 95% CI. IMHO Bonferroni’s α 0.025 should keep the overall risk type I <0.05 for any two-stage method. Ask a statistician.

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, 1,682 registered users;
15 visitors (0 registered, 15 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: 04:58 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It is true that many scientists are not philosophically minded
and have hitherto shown much skill and ingenuity
but little wisdom.    Max Born

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