[Opinion] Should the 90% CI for GMR be required to encompass 1 [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-28 18:43  – Posting: # 18601
Views: 4,853

Dear All -

I am a new poster, long time lurker. I am a clinical pharmacologist who is crazy (but not formally trained) about statistics.

My question involves the case where an entire GMR 90% confidence interval is outside of 100.00 (e.g. 103.00 - 110.00). For HVD with wide therapeutic index, I believe this is reasonable. But what about for a NTID with doses that differ by less than 15%?

I understand this is part of the reason that RSABE and ABEL are implemented. However, let us assume that the Swr is 22% and essentially expands reference scaling to ABE limits. Let us also assume that a 7% difference in BE is clinically significant.

In your opinion, is it reasonable to require the 90% CI for GMR to fall within 1?

Thanks,
bebac_fan

Complete thread:

Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,286 posts in 4,100 threads, 1,317 registered users;
online 15 (1 registered, 14 guests [including 8 identified bots]).

I try not to think with my gut.
If I’m serious about understanding the world,
thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be,
is likely to get me into trouble.    Carl Sagan

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