FA0(1) in PHX: works (& more questions) [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-08-30 19:07 (4325 d 17:43 ago) – Posting: # 11396
Views: 9,840

Hi Linda!

❝ I was able to run both LinMix and Bioeq in Phoenix and their results matched. Also when I excluded the four subjects with incomplete data, I got:

PE=  90.503   90% CI: 73.561–111.347

❝ so the same as what Detlew posted in his next post with the SAS results. I emailed you a project.


THX, confirmed. I screwed up the setup (correct BE but wrong LME) – therefore the “difference”. :crying:

So is FA0(1) the solution? Is FDA’s code – calling for FA0(2)mandatory (aka “Holy Grail”)? As Wolfgang pointed out above in the general BE guidance FDA stated:

In the Random statement, TYPE=FA0(2) could possibly be replaced by TYPE=CSH.

As we have seen in the “nonconvergent” data sets this doesn’t help at all. “Could possibly be replaced by” FA0(1) as well?
Or abandon the partial replicate completely and opt for TRT|RTR – which seems to “work” according to Detlew’s findings?

To make a long story short: What will hurt FDA more or less likely accept?

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,427 posts in 4,929 threads, 1,677 registered users;
65 visitors (0 registered, 65 guests [including 44 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:51 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important.    T. S. Eliot

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