Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum 18:46 CEST

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

Irene_I
Junior

Indonesia,
2018-05-16 09:02

Posting: # 18768
Views: 1,134
 

 Imbalance dataset analysis with Equivtest 2.0 [Software]

Dear all,
My name is Irene and I'm a newcomer in bioequivalence fields. I would like to ask some question about imbalanced datasets. I have a problem in analyzing 2-treatment, 2-sequence, 2-period crossover bioequivalence study design with imbalanced datasets between sequence.

I have looked for this topics and I found a similar problem here but It seems like nothing has concluded. I'm Sorry but I still do not understand about it.

I conducted a data analysis for imbalance datasets from a journal entitled "Reference Dataset for 2-Treatment, 2-sequence, 2-period bioequivalence studies" (Dataset C) with EquivTest 2.0 and I compared the results with the ones stated in journal. I found that Equivtest 2.0 result (Point of estimate and 90% Confidence Interval) was not identical with EquivTest/PK (the result that stated in the journal). My Equivtest 2.0 result for point of estimates and confidence interval were:

point of estimate (90% CI) : 66.78 (44.94,99.24)

The result according to Journal (EquivTest/PK)
point of estimate (90% CI) : 58.56 (39.41,87.03)


So, is there someone could help me with this problem? :confused:

I strongly appreciate if you could help me about this matter. :-)

Best Regards,


Irene
Helmut
Hero
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2018-05-16 11:47

@ Irene_I
Posting: # 18769
Views: 982
 

 EquivTest 2.0: defective!

Hi Irene,

» I conducted a data analysis for imbalance datasets from a journal entitled "Reference Dataset for 2-Treatment, 2-sequence, 2-period bioequivalence studies" (Dataset C) with EquivTest 2.0 and I compared the results with the ones stated in journal. I found that Equivtest 2.0 result (Point of estimate and 90% Confidence Interval) was not identical with EquivTest/PK (the result that stated in the journal). My Equivtest 2.0 result for point of estimates and confidence interval were:
»
» point of estimate (90% CI) : 66.78 (44.94,99.24)
»
» The result according to Journal (EquivTest/PK)
» point of estimate (90% CI) : 58.56 (39.41,87.03)

Congratulations! You discovered yet another defective software. :angry:
The result in EquivTest/PK agrees with ones of other software we have tested (SAS, Phoenix/WinNonlin, R). Screenshot:

[image]


The result you got in EquivTest 2.0 agrees with Kinetica 5.01 – which is wrong.1

Amazingly enough the correct formula taking the number of subjects / sequence (n1, n2) into account is given in the “User Reference Manual”, Chapter 8: Equivalence Testing (p. 166, p. 188 of the PDF) of v2.0 (dated 2001-10-12):

[image]


Did the developers update the manual but not the code

Anyhow, even if you upgrade to EquivTest/PK (of 2006)2 sooner or later you will face other problems. The Welch/Satterthwaite correction for parallel designs with unequal group sizes and/or unequal variances is not supported.3 Furthermore, you will not be able to assess replicate studies intended for reference-scaling according to regulatory requirements (FDA, EMA, WHO, ASEAN States, Australia, Brazil, Egypt, the Russian Federation, the Eurasian Economic Union, New Zealand).

I strongly suggest to get ‘better’ software.


  1. The defect for unbalanced 2×2×2 crossover designs was corrected in Kinetica 5.1 SR1 (2014-12-24). However, the flawed calculation of parallel designs with unequal group sizes was not corrected (see there).
  2. How? On the website of Statistical Solutions Ltd it is not listed any more.
  3. Fuglsang A, Schütz H, Labes D. Reference Datasets for Bioequivalence Trials in a Two-Group Parallel Design. AAPS J. 2015;17(2):400–4. doi:10.1208/s12248-014-9704-6. [image] free view-only version.

Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes
Irene_I
Junior

Indonesia,
2018-05-21 08:19

@ Helmut
Posting: # 18791
Views: 701
 

 EquivTest 2.0: defective!

Hi Helmut,

Thank you for the information. Do you have software recommendation? Is there any problem in analyzing 2-sequence, 2-period, 2-treatment bioequivalence study with SAS?


I would be grateful for your help and I look forward to your reply.

Regards,



Irene
Helmut
Hero
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2018-05-21 17:00

@ Irene_I
Posting: # 18795
Views: 668
 

 Alternative software

Hi Irene,

» Do you have software recommendation?

The ones we compared in our paper should do (except Kinetica, of course). I guess that at least Statistica, SPSS, STaTa, and JMP (“poor man’s SAS”) will do as well. However, it is your job to validate the installation on your machine.

» Is there any problem in analyzing 2-sequence, 2-period, 2-treatment bioequivalence study with SAS?

If you can afford the license, no.

Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes
Irene_I
Junior

Indonesia,
2018-06-07 10:56

@ Helmut
Posting: # 18860
Views: 478
 

 Alternative software

Hi Helmut,

Thank you for your recommendation. It helps me a lot. :-)

Best Regards,

Irene I
ElMaestro
Hero

Denmark,
2018-05-16 14:07

@ Irene_I
Posting: # 18770
Views: 936
 

 Imbalance dataset analysis with Equivtest 2.0

Haha,

I can't believe it :-D
Thanks Irene_I for this post and for lifting my mood. Keep up the good work.

if (3) 4

Best regards,
ElMaestro

"(...) targeted cancer therapies will benefit fewer than 2 percent of the cancer patients they’re aimed at. That reality is often lost on consumers, who are being fed a steady diet of winning anecdotes about miracle cures." New York Times (ed.), June 9, 2018.
Back to the forum Activity
 Thread view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
18,700 posts in 3,984 threads, 1,241 registered users;
online 13 (0 registered, 13 guests [including 12 identified bots]).

When puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents –
a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless,
completely disappeared from large sectors
of the American experience.    Stephen Jay Gould

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5 RSS Feed