Natural constant as usual; not for reference-scaling [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2016-10-11 09:50 (1401 d 12:39 ago) – Posting: # 16717
Views: 10,868

Hi ElMaestro,

very interesting. From the wording of the 2-period study I assume that the original analysis was performed according to “Method C”. I have seen similar requests by the MEB (i.e., post hoc changing to “Method B”). With budesonide the applicant was lucky enough to pass (lower CL 0.80; both of AUC and Cmax) but I have seen other cases. BTW, the GL tells us that the CI should be given in percent rounded to two decimals. Would this study still be accepted now?

BSWP:Some assessors I know:

“I accept studies with Potvin’s methods if the CI is not too close to the acceptance range.


Now to the fully replicated 4-period study:

» Alpha 2.94%. Approved in Germany, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Hungary, Italy, 2015 :-):-):-)

“Correct statistical analysis was conduced.” Hhm. Pocock’s natural constant. “Method B” applied outside its valid range (2×2×2 crossover, n1 12–60, CV 10–100%). Cmax of budesonide again a close shave.


Edit: Seems that the study was not intended for reference-scaling (page 10: “Cmax […] within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 0.80-1.25.”
The CV of Cmax was ~50%. If we assume that n1 (2×2×2) is 2n1 (2×2×4) we are again outside Potvin’s range (92 > 80). However, likely the TIE was controlled. Quick & dirty:

library(Power2Stage)
power.2stage(method="B", alpha=rep(0.0294, 2), n1=46*2,
             GMR=0.95, CV=0.5, targetpower=0.8,
             theta0=1.25, nsims=1e6)$pBE
[1] 0.040382


Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,008 posts in 4,379 threads, 1,460 registered users;
online 17 (1 registered, 16 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 22:29 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Statistics is the art of never having to say you’re wrong.
Variance is what any two statisticians are at.    C.J. Bradfield

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