Approved Pilot and Failed Pivotal Study [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Lucas – Brazil, 2014-03-17 18:51 (4478 d 12:14 ago) – Posting: # 12639
Views: 20,934

Hi!

❝ Apparently the point estimates have changed quite a bit! Could you compare Reference-pilot and Reference-pivotal to get a feeling for these products?


Yes, they've changed a lot, but not only the point estimate, the geometric means aswell. In the drug B studies the Cmax geo mean for the reference treatment changed 45% from the pilot to the pivotal. For drug B the major difference was for the Cmax of the test treatment, which changed 23%.
So when I compare RxR for drug A I get a positive result, but for drug B this does not happen, since they have a ratio of 145% for Cmax. It is noteworthy that for drug A a different batch of the reference was used in the pivotal study, but Cmax was very similar and for drug B with the same batch we got very different values for the plasma concentrations.

❝ Replicate designs employed?


Standard 2x2 Xover actually.

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
136 visitors (0 registered, 136 guests [including 15 identified bots]).
Forum time: 08:05 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Science is simply common sense at its best that is,
rigidly accurate in observation, and
merciless to fallacy in logic.    Thomas Henry Huxley

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