BE study stratified per body weight group [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2018-06-08 19:04 (2196 d 15:40 ago) – Posting: # 18875
Views: 3,264

Dear Martin,

❝ ...

❝ Questions:

❝ 1) Can the BE assessment be based on all data combined or does this require a separate analysis per body weight stratum

❝ 2) If a combined assessment is the way to go how should the model look like

❝ a) Ignoring body weight strata and use classical model (FDA): fixed effects for period, sequence, treatment and random effect for subject nested in sequence.

❝ b) Including body weight strata as mentioned in ICH E9 (i.e. factors on which randomization has been stratified should be accounted for later in the analysis): fixed effects for period, sequence, treatment, body weight strata and random effect for subject nested in sequence.

Additionally to what Helmut wrote:

If you will use a Proc GLM or lm() for the combined assessment you will face a confounding between subject effects and body-weight-strata effects and the analysis code will show you the finger. Something like df=0 will happen, at least for type III tests of effects.

You have to include at least a treatment by body-weight-strata interaction to get meaningfull results.
I'm not really sure if this confounding is also an issue if you plan to use Proc MIXED or lme()/lmer(). Make a example data set and try it.

I suggest that you modify the FDA code for logistic groups (see f.i. this post) accordingly (change group to body-weight-strata and drop Period(nested within Group)).
And read Helmut's lectures about "Multi-Group Studies in BE. To pool or not to pool?". All the criticism regarding the group effects apply also to body-weight-strata effects. The treatment effect (diff in the log domain, ratio on the original scale) in x-over studies is determined intra-subject. Thus all subject characteristics constant over the study can not influence it really.

If you are interested in having a look at BE assesment (ratio & CI) for the different body-weight-strata you have to go with 1) anyway.

BTW: "factors on which randomization has been stratified should be accounted for" should read the other way round: randomize stratified for factors planned to account for in the analysis.



Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
23,056 posts in 4,840 threads, 1,641 registered users;
74 visitors (0 registered, 74 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:44 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Everything is trivial, if you know the answer.    Thomas Jaki

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