Appropriate wording for a protocol [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Elena777 – Belarus, 2019-09-09 19:34 (337 d 19:39 ago) – Posting: # 20564
Views: 4,770

Dear all, I would be pleased to get your opinion on the following. We are planning to conduct several BE studies with adaptive design using the drugs with uncertain intraCV. We have decided to use method C described by Potvin and included the description of the model C in the protocols (the same as in the corresponding scheme presented in Potvin's article). But it seems it's not enough.
  1. Should we include the information that evaluation after stage 1 completion should be performed assuming GMR=0.95?
  2. Should we describe the maximum number of subjects who can be included in whole or in stage 2?
  3. Any other information that should be clearly stated in order to be accurate and to satisfy regulatory authorities?
  4. What if BE criteria are met after stage 1, but estimated power is too low (e.g. 30%)?


Post number 20,000. :-D [Helmut]

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,006 posts in 4,379 threads, 1,460 registered users;
online 13 (2 registered, 11 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 15:14 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Statistics is the art of never having to say you’re wrong.
Variance is what any two statisticians are at.    C.J. Bradfield

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