sampleN.TOST vs. sampleN.scABEL [Power / Sample Size]

posted by BEQool  – 2024-01-29 12:53 (78 d 14:29 ago) – Posting: # 23845
Views: 1,296

Hello!

I have searched the forum but couldn't find the answer to the following question: why does the sample size estimation with R with package PowerTOST differ between sampleN.TOST and sampleN.scABEL when CV=30%?

Lets take a look at the following example:

a) Sample size estimation with sampleN.TOST
sampleN.TOST(CV=0.3, theta0=0.95, design="2x3x3")

+++++++++++ Equivalence test - TOST +++++++++++
            Sample size estimation
-----------------------------------------------
Study design: 2x3x3 (partial replicate)
log-transformed data (multiplicative model)

alpha = 0.05, target power = 0.8
BE margins = 0.8 ... 1.25
True ratio = 0.95,  CV = 0.3
Sample size (total)
 n     power
30   0.820400


b) Sample size estimation with sampleN.scABEL
sampleN.scABEL(CV=0.3, theta0=0.95, design="2x3x3")

+++++++++++ scaled (widened) ABEL +++++++++++
            Sample size estimation
   (simulation based on ANOVA evaluation)
---------------------------------------------
Study design: 2x3x3 (partial replicate)
log-transformed data (multiplicative model)
1e+05 studies for each step simulated.

alpha  = 0.05, target power = 0.8
CVw(T) = 0.3; CVw(R) = 0.3
True ratio = 0.95
ABE limits / PE constraint = 0.8 ... 1.25
EMA regulatory settings
- CVswitch            = 0.3
- cap on scABEL if CVw(R) > 0.5
- regulatory constant = 0.76
- pe constraint applied
Sample size search
 n     power
24   0.7814
27   0.8257


So why do the sample size estimations differ? They have the same arguments (design="2x3x3", theta0=0.95 ...). CV is 30% so there should be no scaling (conventional BE limits, i.e., 80.00-125.00). Does it have to do anything with simulations? But even when I increase number of simulations, the differences aren't that big.

Or if I reformulate the question, why dont the following powers match:

a) power.TOST(CV=0.3, theta0=0.95,design="2x3x3", n=30)
[1] 0.8204004


b) power.scABEL(CV=0.3, theta0=0.95, design="2x3x3", n=30)
[1] 0.85977


Regards
BEQool


Edit: Category changed. [Helmut]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,984 posts in 4,822 threads, 1,654 registered users;
55 visitors (0 registered, 55 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 04:22 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