AUC passes with 0.05 and Cmax with 0.0294 [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Elena777 – Belarus, 2019-09-19 10:34 (2475 d 03:28 ago) – Posting: # 20615
Views: 18,678

Dear Helmut,

I`m sorry for being persistent on the topic.

❝ »First step - estimated power is less than target (80%) for Cmax and more than target for AUC, 90%CI for AUC is OK. To be in compliance with method C of Potvin, we re-calculate CI for Cmax with α=0,0294. And BE criterion for Cmax is met after this step. Finally we will have the following in a CSR: BE criterion was met for AUC using α=0,05 (90%CI) and BE criterion was met for Cmax using α=0,0294 (94,12% CI). Does it look OK?


Absolutely. The ideas behind the different alphas in Potvin C are:

  1. If interim power is ≥80%, essentially your assumptions about the CV were correct. Assess the study like a fixed sample design with α 0.05. You stop anyway (pass/fail).

  2. If interim power is <80%, your assumptions about the CV were not correct. Assess the study with the adjusted α 0.0294.
    1. If you pass, stop.

    2. If you fail, initiate the second stage.
Hence, in your example you are for Cmax in the branch 2.a. and for AUC in branch 1. All is good.



To be completely sure that I understood you in a proper way, the final question is:

First step - estimated power is less than target (80%) for Cmax and more than target for AUCt. 90%CI for AUCt is OK. As per method C of Potvin, we re-calculate CI for Cmax with α=0,0294. And BE criterion for Cmax is NOT met after this step. Then we calculate CVintra for Cmax and proceed with the second stage. What combined data should be evaluated after stage 2 completion: ONLY for Cmax or for Cmax and AUCt?

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
314 visitors (0 registered, 314 guests [including 28 identified bots]).
Forum time: 14:02 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

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