Thanks, and DKMA [Power / Sample Size]

posted by ElMaestro  – Belgium?, 2017-02-06 13:46  – Posting: # 17020
Views: 19,710

Hi Hötzi,

thanks for clarification. I am sorry I did not get it. Happens often.

» Yes, sure. I guess this is what you have done in EFG?

Not quite; when I made EFG I also believed what I was told (apparently quoting from an FDA pres. somewhere, which I don't have) that it was not possible to calculate the power / sample size in the presence of a significant treatment effect.
So in my EFG implementation I used simulation.

Later I decided we don't all to be sheep and refuted FDA's statement with three lines of code. Too bad I can't find the original presentation or statement from FDA anywhere :-D.

I hope the idea in the code above is clear enough that simulations won't be necessary.

Finally, the wording from DKMA's side is certainly a bit backward or dubious, but DKMA are currently to the best of my knowledge only enforcing the requirement in relation to substitution. Proof of BE and approval does not hinge on a CI including 1.0. I heard in my local supermarket that they are fully aware they'd be smashed totally flat if they had to convince anyone in a referral that a treatment effect precludes a conclusion of BE.

I could be wrong, but...

Best regards,
ElMaestro

"Pass or fail" (D. Potvin et al., 2008)

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,780 posts in 4,351 threads, 1,444 registered users;
online 17 (0 registered, 17 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 14:49 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

All we know about the world teaches us that the effects of A and B
are always different—in some decimal place—for any A and B.
Thus asking “are the effects different?” is foolish.    John W. Tukey

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