–0.2025 < –0.2, right? [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-04-05 10:53 (653 d 19:40 ago) – Posting: # 20129
Views: 2,133

Hi PKS,

I reordered your quotes for clarity.

» My protocol says within (-0.20 and 0.20)
» » » Should I conclude bio-equivalence with the values of [-0.2025, 0.076] in clinical end point study.

No!
{–0.2025, +0.076} {–0.20, +0.20} ∎

Furthermore, ±0.20 of what? Since you are working with untransformed data, possibly  = ±20% of the arithmetic mean of the reference. This was used in the dark ages of BE as well. Hence, the limits were {1 – , 1 + } or {0.8000, 1.2000}. Do you think that {0.7975, 1.0760} would pass?
Or do you want to want to deal directly with (as your protocol suggests) and round the CI to only 2–3* digits in order to pass the limits stated in your own protocol?

» Can I assume it as within the interval of (-0.20, 0.20)

You can assume whatever you like. If you give us the design, sizes (per sequence in a crossover, of groups in a parallel), and the CV we can calculate the α (probability of type I error, aka patient’s risk). However, α will be >0.05 and hence, the chances that authorities will accept the study as proof of equivalence are extremely low.



Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,303 posts in 4,441 threads, 1,487 registered users;
online 10 (0 registered, 10 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 05:34 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science,
with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle
and find our way by trial and error,
building our road behind us as we proceed.    Max Born

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