Non-parametric N [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2022-09-06 19:02 (1017 d 12:21 ago) – Posting: # 23274
Views: 4,634

Hi Alex,

❝ So we would calculate our N based on a non-parametric test for T-max differences (I have heard some epidemologists saying its ok to calculate with T-Test and increase like 15%)


That’s black magick. Why 15%?

❝ Kind of related, I guess no concern exists about the almost sure increase in Cmax if it doesnt go beyond the therapeutic range inst it?


No idea. In the EMA’s bracketing approach you perform a Non-Superiority test with an upper margin of 1.25. All of this stuff (including BE) is not related to the therapeutic range at all.

❝ Not possible to calculate N for Tmax but to perform certain simulations with some parameters.


Even then it’s not an easy job.

❝ So better to run a pilot without and seein what comes?


Yes.

❝ if you are right Tmax will come sooner (with a higher Cmax).


Likely. But as I wrote before: Under the premise of no saturable pre-systemic metabolism.

❝ Would it support a SmPC change?


No idea. Once you have the result of a pilot, consider a scientific advice. Sweden?

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,676 registered users;
41 visitors (0 registered, 41 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:23 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

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