Inflation of the TIE as well [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Elena777 – Belarus, 2020-01-29 21:01 (1038 d 03:18 ago) – Posting: # 21098
Views: 18,291

Dear Helmut,
Let me describe the situation in detail.
We recently conducted a replicative BS (EMA approach). We submitted the study to the Belarusian NCA and received comments on statistics. In the protocol, we stated that first we would try ABE, and if we failed then would go to scaling. We passed the BE criteria within 80-125% range for both Cmax and AUC (ABE approach). The expert demanded to calculate RR that we did not do but can do, but also to control TIE that we think is nonsense. As a result, I have a couple of additional questions.
  1. Is calculation RR for the reference drug mandatory and used somewhere else, except to widen the bioequivalence interval for Cmax (reference to my first questions)?
  2. Is TIE nominal and cannot be controlled if we do not widen the bioequivalence interval in replicative studies and use ABEL?
  3. Could you provide us with formula to calculate CI for fully replicative studies in math not computer format?
  4. How mathematically (in formula) can the inflation of TIE take place in RBS if we nominally control t-parameter (choose it from tables, for example)?
  5. What role of fixed or random effects in RBS or ordinary BS?

I am not a statistician
Best regards

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,426 posts in 4,694 threads, 1,600 registered users;
21 visitors (1 registered, 20 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:19 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The rise of biometry in this 20th century,
like that of geometry in the 3rd century before Christ,
seems to mark out one of the great ages or critical periods
in the advance of the human understanding.    R.A. Fisher

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