Flawed evaluation accepted [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-01-31 14:17 (241 d 05:05 ago) – Posting: # 21120
Views: 12,610

Hi Mikalai,

» I would like to stress out again that this decision tree has been used in multiple accepted BE studies. The tree is used not only by Indian CROs but CROs from developed countries. […] And again no complaints from regulators at all; otherwise, it would not be used

Sad, so sad! (Mr Trump)

» Why is it flawed?

It is [image] not even wrong. ([image] Wolfgang Pauli)

» They passed bioequivalence with the first step and did not go to the second one.

By luck because the CV was lower than assumed (30% instead of 32%) and there were substantially fewer dropouts than anticipated.

» It may be risky according to your approach but they were lucky enough. There is no TIE inflation in their study as I understand.
» What is wrong in relation to TIE inflation?

One should never design a study relying on luck!
If with this approach (assessing ABE with a 90% CI first) one proceeds to ABEL because ABE failed, the patient’s risk is compromised and there is no bloody way to control the Type I Error.
If regulators don’t give a shit about the patient’s risk, we should.

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
21,084 posts in 4,398 threads, 1,468 registered users;
online 5 (0 registered, 5 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 20:22 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues
(or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and
to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment.
Arguments from authority are unacceptable.    Carl Sagan

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