FA0(1) in PHX: works (& more questions) [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-08-30 19:07 (3884 d 13:46 ago) – Posting: # 11396
Views: 8,273

Hi Linda!

❝ I was able to run both LinMix and Bioeq in Phoenix and their results matched. Also when I excluded the four subjects with incomplete data, I got:

PE=  90.503   90% CI: 73.561–111.347

❝ so the same as what Detlew posted in his next post with the SAS results. I emailed you a project.


THX, confirmed. I screwed up the setup (correct BE but wrong LME) – therefore the “difference”. :crying:

So is FA0(1) the solution? Is FDA’s code – calling for FA0(2)mandatory (aka “Holy Grail”)? As Wolfgang pointed out above in the general BE guidance FDA stated:

In the Random statement, TYPE=FA0(2) could possibly be replaced by TYPE=CSH.

As we have seen in the “nonconvergent” data sets this doesn’t help at all. “Could possibly be replaced by” FA0(1) as well?
Or abandon the partial replicate completely and opt for TRT|RTR – which seems to “work” according to Detlew’s findings?

To make a long story short: What will hurt FDA more or less likely accept?

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,987 posts in 4,824 threads, 1,663 registered users;
70 visitors (0 registered, 70 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: 08:54 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by Infinity
is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity.    Voltaire

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