BE study stratified per body weight group [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2018-06-08 17:04 (901 d 01:11 ago) – Posting: # 18875
Views: 2,202

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:

 Admin contact
21,210 posts in 4,426 threads, 1,481 registered users;
online 11 (0 registered, 11 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 17:16 CET (Europe/Vienna)

You can’t fix by analysis
what you bungled by design.    Richard J. Light, Judith D. Singer, John B. Willett

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