Posting style & incomplete information [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2013-07-29 18:32 (4711 d 19:58 ago) – Posting: # 11114
Views: 24,893

Hi,

❝ Fed Pilot Study Results (Total Sample szie 18):

Dependent      Ratio[%Ref] CI_90_Lower CI_90_Upper Power   CV(%)  n

Ln(AUCINF_obs)     87.39     69.74      108.72      51.0   32.2  14

Ln(AUClast)        81.09     67.57       97.32      65.0   26.3  14

Ln(Cmax)           87.07     67.52      113.11      41.0   37.8  14


❝ Fed Pivotal Study Results (Total Sample szie 48):

Dependent      Ratio[%Ref] CI_90_Lower CI_90_Upper Power   CV(%)  n

Ln(AUCINF_obs)     96.45     91.53      101.64     100.0   14.5  44

Ln(AUClast)        95.94     90.95      101.21     100.0   14.8  44

Ln(Cmax)           87.91     81.81       94.47      99.99  20.3  44


This really bugs me (even though I am looking at fed data). You have a 15% increase in AUCt ratio between pilot and pivotal.

Question 1) I am sure that you did. But did you use the same lot# of the reference product throughout the program (yes, all pilot and pivotal studies)?

John

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
218 visitors (0 registered, 218 guests [including 130 identified bots]).
Forum time: 14:31 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses,
is in the eye of the beholder.    Laurence J. Peter

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