Final EMA oracle [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2010-02-01 15:54 (5977 d 22:58 ago) – Posting: # 4682
Views: 27,746

Dear d_labes, dear HS,

it was only an attempt from my side to guess how regulators would think in relation to that sentence; it was not an attempt to justify the science behind it.

What makes me think like I do has to do with
  1. Vocabulary. I think the sentence leaves little room for interpretation in its present form. The way that sentence is written I would definitely say that pruning a dataset (however bad science one may think it is) is compliant.

  2. Regulatory checking of results. In several countries across Europe, I think assessor teams do not routinely involve statisticians and the capability of an assessor to check results will in such cases be limited to simpler data like those from 2-seq 2-per 2-trt studies. If the applicant can prune the data they become widely checkable.
    Bear also in mind that the reason why only noncomportmental modeling is accepted has in large part to do with exactly the same.

Best regards
EM.

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,570 registered users;
130 visitors (0 registered, 130 guests [including 19 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:53 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The idea is to try and give all the information to help others
to judge the value of your contribution;
not just the information that leads to judgment
in one particular direction or another.    Richard Feynman

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