PKS
☆    

India,
2019-04-05 08:45

Posting: # 20125
Views: 862
 

 Clinical end point acceptance limit [Study As­sess­ment]

Should I conclude bio-equivalence with the values of [-0.2025, 0.076] in clinical end point study. Can I assume it as within the interval of (-0.20, 0.20)


Edit: Category changed; see also this post #1. Please follow the Forum’s Policy[Helmut]
ElMaestro
★★★

Belgium?,
2019-04-05 08:51

@ PKS
Posting: # 20126
Views: 799
 

 Clinical end point acceptance limit

Hello to you too, PKS,

» Should I conclude bio-equivalence with the values of [-0.2025, 0.076] in clinical end point study. Can I assume it as within the interval of (-0.20, 0.20)

What does your protocol say on exactly that matter?

I could be wrong, but...
Best regards,
ElMaestro
nobody
nothing

2019-04-05 09:04

@ ElMaestro
Posting: # 20127
Views: 797
 

 Clinical end point acceptance limit

» What does your protocol say on exactly that matter?

Educated guess: nuffin....

Kindest regards, nobody
PKS
☆    

India,
2019-04-05 09:17

@ ElMaestro
Posting: # 20128
Views: 796
 

 Clinical end point acceptance limit

» » Should I conclude bio-equivalence with the values of [-0.2025, 0.076] in clinical end point study. Can I assume it as within the interval of (-0.20, 0.20)
»
» What does your protocol say on exactly that matter?

My protocol says within (-0.20 and 0.20)
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2019-04-05 10:53

@ PKS
Posting: # 20129
Views: 767
 

 –0.2025 < –0.2, right?

Hi PKS,

I reordered your quotes for clarity.

» My protocol says within (-0.20 and 0.20)
» » » Should I conclude bio-equivalence with the values of [-0.2025, 0.076] in clinical end point study.

No!
{–0.2025, +0.076} {–0.20, +0.20} ∎

Furthermore, ±0.20 of what? Since you are working with untransformed data, possibly  = ±20% of the arithmetic mean of the reference. This was used in the dark ages of BE as well. Hence, the limits were {1 – , 1 + } or {0.8000, 1.2000}. Do you think that {0.7975, 1.0760} would pass?
Or do you want to want to deal directly with (as your protocol suggests) and round the CI to only 2–3* digits in order to pass the limits stated in your own protocol?

» Can I assume it as within the interval of (-0.20, 0.20)

You can assume whatever you like. If you give us the design, sizes (per sequence in a crossover, of groups in a parallel), and the CV we can calculate the α (probability of type I error, aka patient’s risk). However, α will be >0.05 and hence, the chances that authorities will accept the study as proof of equivalence are extremely low.


  • IEEE 754  : round(–0.2025, 2) = –0.2 (unbiased from zero)
    commercial: round(–0.2025, 3) = –0.2 (biased from zero)

Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes
Activity
 Thread view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,694 posts in 4,181 threads, 1,355 registered users;
online 8 (0 registered, 8 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 14:25 CEST

A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues
(or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and
to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment.
Arguments from authority are unacceptable.    Carl Sagan

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