ANOVA Model: Factors [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-06-26 12:38 (1260 d 07:58 ago) – Posting: # 18966
Views: 3,568

Hi Scopy,

» […] (although I'm still looking for a much more simplified book).

Maybe Hauschke et al.1

» However I noticed they only considered carryover factor, formulation factor and the period factor in the ANOVA model. I don't get to see the sequence factor as stipulated in the WHO guidelines.
» Could it be that the Carryover factor is one and same as the Sequence factor?

Exactly. They are synonyms. An equal carryover does not hurt (will not bias the treatment effect). However, an unequal one will.

» I'd appreciate is someone could explain this to me as if I were a kindergarten pupil ;-).

I’ll try. Which factors do we have in a 2×2 crossover? Subjects2 (1–n), treatments (T and R), periods (1 and 2), and sequences (RT and TR). Actually we have two groups of subjects, one is treated in the order RT and the other in the order TR. Hence, in the statistical literature (not about BE) sometimes you find ‘group’ instead of ‘sequence’… Let’s explore which effects will influence the treatment effect. Simple example: Untransformed data, true values of the reference 100 and of the test 95, balanced sequences. Therefore, we can work with unadjusted means.
Problems:Likely unequal carryover doesn’t exist in a properly designed study (sufficiently long washout). The test should go to the statistical waste bin and is of historic interest only (EMA GL: “A test for carry-over is not considered relevant and no decisions regarding the analysis (e.g. analysis of the first period only) should be made on the basis of such a test.”).

  1. Hauschke D, Steinijans VW, Pigeot I. Bioequivalence Studies in Drug Development: Methods and Applications. New York: Wiley; 2007.
  2. [image]Since subjects are uniquely coded, stating ‘subject(sequence)’ in the model is superfluous. Say ‘subject 1’ is in the sequence ‘RT’. There is no ‘subject 1’ in the sequence ‘TR’, right? Using ‘subject(sequence)’ instead of simply ‘subject’ drives El­Maestro’s Silly-O-Meter as far as it will go.
    Try the simple model instead. You will get exactly the same PE and residual error and therefore, the CI as in the model stated in the guidelines. The only difference is that you get rid of the many lines in the software’s output stating just “not estimable” (Phoenix/WinNonlin) or “.” (SAS).

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz

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

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,788 posts in 4,557 threads, 1,548 registered users;
online 8 (0 registered, 8 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: Tuesday 19:36 CET (Europe/Vienna)

A big computer, a complex algorithm and a long time
does not equal science.    Robert Gentleman

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