posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2020-07-15 18:13 (296 d 02:30 ago) – Posting: # 21703
Views: 10,810

Hi Helmut, Hi ElMaestro,

» ...
» Well, the EMA’s models are wacky because they assume equal intra-subject variances of T and R. An assumption which was shown to be false in many cases. Essentially most of the information obtainable in a replicate design is thrown away.

Full ACK!

» I don’t know why the FDA does not directly estimate \(\small{s_\textrm{wR}^2}\) from the mixed model but work with the intra-subject contrasts of R instead. ...

I was always wondering about the different methodologies in the code of the progesteron guidance:
Why not use the ISC estimate of T-R in the ABE decision in case of swR < 0.029356 (CVwR < 30%)?
Politics? Nostalgia (Since years recommended the Proc MIXED code)?

Or the other way round: Why not use the components of the RSABE criterion (pe and 90% CI, s2wR) from the mixed model approach?

I would opt for the full ISC approach because it may be unambiguously implemented in SAS, R, Phoenix and so on for every replicate design, full or partial :cool:.



Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,445 posts in 4,482 threads, 1,511 registered users;
online 14 (0 registered, 14 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 20:44 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The plural of anecdote is not data.    Roger Brinner

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