TIE for NTIDs [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Astea – Russia, 2018-02-04 21:04 (1874 d 21:11 ago) – Posting: # 18342
Views: 19,188

Dear Helmut! Thank you for the rectification! Till you and Detlew care about it, the world can breathe calmly!

Dear Detlew!

And what about the different CI for two metrics? Can you invent smthg like Power2.RSABE or Power2.NTIDFDA or it is a stupid idea?

My thoughts are as follows: according to some product specific EMA guideline (sirolimus for example) we should shorten the limit only for AUC but not for Cmax. May it leed to TIE inflation or not?

For an extreme example, suppose we calculate sample size, basing on CV 25% (I understand that NTID should not have large variance but nevertherless): sampleN.TOST(CV=0.25, theta0=0.975, theta1=0.9, theta2=1.11, design="2x2")
122 volunteers!

Then by using Power.2TOST for CV=0.3 I get TIE very slightly upper than 0.05
power.2TOST(CV=c(0.3,0.25), n=122, theta1=c(0.8, 0.9), theta2=c(1.25, 1.11), theta0=c(1, 1.11), rho=0)
[1] 0.05000002

In this case the diference from 0.05 is negligible, but may be one could find more rude example? Or am I using or interpretate power.2TOST uncorrectly?

❝ Try this (for the homoscedastic case swR=swT):

And what to do if variances are different (non-negotiable word heteroscedasticity)?

"Being in minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad"

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,551 posts in 4,724 threads, 1,606 registered users;
22 visitors (0 registered, 22 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:15 CET (Europe/Vienna)

If there is an exception to any rule,
and if it can be proved by observation,
that rule is wrong.    Richard Feynman

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