Two stage BE design — cold water thrown on our head [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Shuanghe  – Spain, 2013-10-18 12:05 (4266 d 13:30 ago) – Posting: # 11692
Views: 26,623

Hi guys,

❝ I think method B is the current EU winner due to alpha=0.0294 being used at both steps.


Well, if the feedback I just got is official, you would be wrong — All methods with prefix "Potvin" are losers, in EMA region I mean.

Here's some input from certain agency with regard to 2-stage design I posted a year ago that the methods are "... not valid in Europe".

and a few weeks back we asked again for one of our projects, given the fact that more studies were presented with Potvin's method. Helmut alone got quite a few. :cool:

Below are loose translations:

Q: "..., we'd like to ask about the current status of 2-stage design BE study, ... if the BE protocol with Potvin's Method C is acceptable now ..."

A: "Potvin's methods are not acceptable in EMA."

:confused:

so, first question, how could it be? Have some of you guy's dossiers with Potvin's method(s) been approved/accepted (no deficient letter, rejection letter etc)?

Secondly, it got me double check the guideline. I always had the impression that method B is practically mentioned in the guide. Not quite. :no: There's no mention of interim power analysis in the BE guide while method B... you know. So I guess the power analysis is probably the "evil" here causing all the fuss...

There's rumour that some working party is currently discussing this topic. Anyone has any insight?

All the best,
Shuanghe

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,672 registered users;
287 visitors (0 registered, 287 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:36 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Reach for the stars,
even if you have to stand on a cactus.    Susan Longacre

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