“Group-by-Treatment Interaction” [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-07-23 12:32 (1827 d 04:08 ago) – Posting: # 20435
Views: 3,930

Hi GM,

❝ I have seen one FDA BE review […].

Yep, the 1999 (!) infamous one. Groups separated by two weeks. See the FDA’ applicable guidance (2001), Section VII.A.

❝ Here agency is asking for the BE of any one of the group, if group-by-treatment interaction is significant (p<0.05).

0.1 not 0.05. BTW, did you bother reading the presentation I linked in my OP?

❝ Is it possible in studies conducted on HVD?

Do you have a replicate design in mind? For ABE, no problem. For the EMA’s ABEL, doable. For the FDA’s RSABE, difficult. Ask three statisticians only to get get four options. Possible that the FDA insists on the fifth nobody has thought about. Difficult terrain.

❝ Please provide your thoughts on the same.

Let’s assume that you plan the study in such a way that groups are not expected to differ (see ElMaestro’s post).Do not (!) apply the framework suggested by the FDA in the dark ages!

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
23,117 posts in 4,859 threads, 1,647 registered users;
55 visitors (1 registered, 54 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:41 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

You can’t really say “similar” if it’s the same again you want.
“Similar” means something different.    Anthony Burgess

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