Irene_I
☆    

Indonesia,
2018-05-16 09:02
(927 d 18:34 ago)

Posting: # 18768
Views: 3,564
 

 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
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2018-05-16 11:47
(927 d 15:48 ago)

@ Irene_I
Posting: # 18769
Views: 3,844
 

 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.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Indonesia,
2018-05-21 08:19
(922 d 19:16 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 18791
Views: 2,778
 

 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
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2018-05-21 17:00
(922 d 10:36 ago)

@ Irene_I
Posting: # 18795
Views: 2,842
 

 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.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Indonesia,
2018-06-07 10:56
(905 d 16:40 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 18860
Views: 2,568
 

 Alternative software

Hi Helmut,

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

Best Regards,

Irene I
ElMaestro
★★★

Belgium?,
2018-05-16 14:07
(927 d 13:29 ago)

@ Irene_I
Posting: # 18770
Views: 3,049
 

 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.

I could be wrong, but...

Best regards,
ElMaestro

No, of course you do not need to audit your CRO if it was inspected in 1968 by the agency of Crabongostan.
Activity
 Admin contact
21,216 posts in 4,427 threads, 1,481 registered users;
online 8 (0 registered, 8 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 02:36 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important.    T. S. Eliot

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