PKS
☆    

India,
2019-04-05 08:45
(929 d 09:47 ago)

Posting: # 20125
Views: 2,943
 

 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
★★★

Denmark,
2019-04-05 08:51
(929 d 09:40 ago)

@ PKS
Posting: # 20126
Views: 2,506
 

 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?

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
nobody
nothing

2019-04-05 09:04
(929 d 09:28 ago)

@ ElMaestro
Posting: # 20127
Views: 2,504
 

 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
(929 d 09:14 ago)

@ ElMaestro
Posting: # 20128
Views: 2,478
 

 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
(929 d 07:38 ago)

@ PKS
Posting: # 20129
Views: 2,444
 

 –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)

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Activity
 Admin contact
21,749 posts in 4,547 threads, 1,544 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 18:32 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Mediocrity finds safety in standardization.    Frederick E. Crane

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