Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

2nd opinion [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2013-04-05 17:24 (4422 d 12:31 ago) – Posting: # 10353
Views: 9,470

Hi Helmut!

❝ Bad luck. Reformulate since in the unscaled analysis the lower 90% CL of 134.02% > 125.00% – demonstrating bioinequivalence.

Yes the study was a dud I was trying to use the dataset and results to validate my SAS code. I already validated my code with another study but was trying to validate with this one again just to kill time. I didn't know I would end up with this turd from the CRO.

So my computation is correct then

I still don't understand why they didn't use the FDA sequence as is (1=TRR, 2=RTR, 3=RRT) instead of using their own (1=BAB, 2=ABB, 3=BBA). Oh well.

Thank v much for your help.

John

P.S. Did you have a good time with my professor laszlo Endrenyi during your last seminar/conference? Great guy.

Complete thread:

• SAS Procedure on Partial Replicate (TRR) Study Data jag009 2013-04-02 21:11 
  • Confusing… Helmut 2013-04-03 13:42
    • Confusing… jag009 2013-04-03 16:06
      • Confusing… Helmut 2013-04-03 21:49
        • Confusing… jag009 2013-04-03 23:01
          • Confusing… Helmut 2013-04-03 23:22
            • Confusing… jag009 2013-04-04 15:59
            • Confusing… jag009 2013-04-04 17:21
              • 2nd opinion Helmut 2013-04-05 01:01
                • 2nd opinionjag009 2013-04-05 15:24
              • 3rd, 4th opinion d_labes 2013-04-05 11:04
                • 3rd, 4th opinion jag009 2013-04-05 15:41
                  • Beer swaped d_labes 2013-04-05 16:09
                    • Beer swaped jag009 2013-04-05 17:18