Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log-in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  Query: 2018-04-23 00:16 CEST (UTC+2h)
 

[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: 1,863

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:

Back to the forum Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum | Admin contact
18,200 posts in 3,870 threads, 1,153 registered users;
33 users online (0 registered, 33 guests).

Not to be absolutely certain is, I think,
one of the essential things in rationality.    Bertrand Russell

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
XHTML/CSS RSS Feed