Log in
Register|
akash ☆ India, 2019-02-23 09:39 (2222 d 04:25 ago) Posting: # 19967 Views: 6,194 |
|
|
Why Bioequivalence testing makes use of the 90 CI why not 95 CI which gives more accuracy? Edit: Category changed; see also this post #1. Please follow the Forum’s Policy. [Helmut] |
|
ElMaestro ★★★ Denmark, 2019-02-23 11:18 (2222 d 02:46 ago) @ akash Posting: # 19968 Views: 5,391 |
|
|
Hi Akash, ❝ Why Bioequivalence testing makes use of the 90 CI why not 95 CI which gives more accuracy? More accuracy, what does that mean? We have some more or less empirically justified limits of 80.00%-125.00%. And we want a 5% risk of making the wrong conclusions in the sense of regulatory (patient's) risk; in practice this means we adopt a policy of a 5% risk of approving a product that is not BE. This is where the 90% CI comes into the equation. There is a (not more than) 5% risk associated with it (1-2*alpha). A 95% CI would be less risky, ie. up to 2.5% chance of approving a non-BE product. Why would we want that, then alpha=5% seems to work just fine? — Pass or fail! ElMaestro |
|
Ohlbe ★★★ France, 2019-03-04 00:07 (2213 d 13:57 ago) @ ElMaestro Posting: # 19992 Views: 5,350 |
|
|
Dear Akash, ❝ This is where the 90% CI comes into the equation. There is a (not more than) 5% risk associated with it (1-2*alpha). My understanding of the reason why: the true T/R ratio cannot be at the same time lower than 0.8 and higher than 1.25. So even if you test the lower limit with a 5 % risk, and the higher limit with a 5 % risk, the overall risk still remains 5 % for the patients, not 10 %. — Regards Ohlbe |
|
Helmut ★★★   Vienna, Austria, 2019-03-04 02:20 (2213 d 11:44 ago) @ Ohlbe Posting: # 19996 Views: 5,237 |
|
|
Hi Ohlbe, ❝ […] So even if you test the lower limit with a 5 % risk, and the higher limit with a 5 % risk, the overall risk still remains 5 % for the patients, not 10 %. Correct. @Akash: Maybe you were confused by one-sided superiority testing in phase III (which is performed at an α-level of 5%). In other words, if patients are treated with the originator’s product, there is a 5% risk that it does not perform better (more efficient and/or safer) than placebo. If we would test for BE at the 2.5% level (95% CI) we would be overly strict and at the same time gain absolutely nothing in terms of the patient’s risk. — Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! ![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png) Helmut Schütz ![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png) The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes |
|
ElMaestro ★★★ Denmark, 2019-03-04 10:04 (2213 d 04:00 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 19997 Views: 5,236 |
|
|
Hi Hötzi, ❝ In other words, if patients are treated with the originator’s product, there is a 5% risk that it does not perform better (more efficient and/or safer) than placebo. There is no more than a 5% risk of approving the test product (=concluding superiority) if the test product is not superior. ❝ If we would test for BE at the 2.5% level (95% CI) we would be overly strict and at the same time gain absolutely nothing in terms of the patient’s risk. The patient's risk would be halved (max 2.5% chance of approving a non-BE product; CIs would get wider). — Pass or fail! ElMaestro |
|
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2019-03-04 12:25 (2213 d 01:39 ago) @ ElMaestro Posting: # 19998 Views: 5,239 |
|
|
Hi ElMaestro, sure. What I meant is: If a drug-naïve patient is treated with the originator’s product, the risk is 5%. With a 90% in BE the risk is also 5%. — 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 |
Ing. Helmut Schütz