sasikumar ☆ Tamilnadu, India, 2008-05-31 13:30 (6187 d 07:45 ago) Posting: # 1891 Views: 8,851 |
|
Dear All, If I want to report PK parameters Cmax and AUC, why I have to use 90% CI and Why not P-Value? If I use 90% CI, Cmax and AUC of test and reference formulation are bioequivalent. In this case, P-Value shows that test and reference formulation are significantly different. Please clarify the above query. Thanks and Regards, S.Sasikumar |
Jaime_R ★★ Barcelona, 2008-05-31 15:04 (6187 d 06:11 ago) @ sasikumar Posting: # 1892 Views: 7,488 |
|
Dear S.Sasikumar! To quote the first paragraph of the forum's policy: We expect a basic knowledge on BE/BA or related fields and the willingness to begin first with the Search function for similar problems. In BE we are not interested in rejecting the null-hypothesis of equivalence (this is significance testing), but to reject the null-hypothesis of inequivalence. This can be done by performing two one sided t-tests at alpha 0.05 (the first one 'looking' whether T is below 80% of R and the second one 'looking' whether T is above 125% of R) - the sum of both p-values must be <0.10 to claim BE. Inclusion of a 90% confidence interval within the acceptance range is actually the same thing. In any study of a high enough sample size you will get a statistically significant difference, but this has nothing to do with clinical significance (which is set mainly to 20%, or to 10% for NTI drugs in some regulations). If your study was properly planned in terms of power and you get a significant treatment effect there are a couple of explanations possible:
Edit: See this post, and this post for references to textbooks. — Regards, Jaime |
martin ★★ Austria, 2008-05-31 18:30 (6187 d 02:46 ago) @ sasikumar Posting: # 1894 Views: 7,444 |
|
dear sasikumar! this guideline may help in understanding the different concepts of testing for equivalence/non-inferiority and testing for difference/superiority: http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/pdf/euguide/ewp/048299en.pdf testing for equivalence with a type I error of 5% can be done by the two-sided 90% confidence interval inclusion approach (similar to the two one-sided tests approach TOST). the calculated two-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between test and reference treatment (e.g. ratio of geometric means) must fall completely within pre-specified margins of equivalence. conventional margins in pharmacokinetics are 0.8 to 1.25 which are symmetric margins for ratios as 1/0.8=1.25 and 1/1.25=0.8. for more detail regarding testing for equivalence you may find this book helpful: Wellek S (2003). Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press. best regards martin |
Helmut ★★★ ![]() ![]() Vienna, Austria, 2008-06-04 17:41 (6183 d 03:35 ago) @ martin Posting: # 1918 Views: 7,396 |
|
Dear Martin! ❝ http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/pdf/euguide/ewp/048299en.pdf … … is a really excellent reference for beginners! ❝ for more detail regarding testing for equivalence you may find this book helpful: Wellek S (2003). Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press. Oh wow, Wellek's book is not entry level! I would recommend a selection from this post, namely IMHO increasing level: Hauschke et al. (2007), Chow and Liu (2000), Patterson and Jones (2006), Senn (2000) – then it's time for Stefan Wellek… ![]() — Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! ![]() Helmut Schütz ![]() The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes |
martin ★★ Austria, 2008-06-04 20:33 (6183 d 00:42 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 1919 Views: 7,302 |
|
dear hs ! thank your for pointing out that Wellek's book is too technical for beginners. for beginners I can recommend a document on the FDA's homepage (link). this document may also of interest to researchers with a basic understanding of this topic as this document addresses also the issue of multiplicity in the case of testing for equivalence in more than one parameter. best regards martin |