Approved Pilot and Failed Pivotal Study [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Lucas – Brazil, 2014-03-17 19:55 (4479 d 13:46 ago) – Posting: # 12641
Views: 21,378

(edited on 2014-03-17 20:13)

❝ ...should read "For drug A...", or?


No. For the test treatment of drug A the difference between the two studies was actually lower than that.

❝ Which agency do you wanna go with these data?


❝ Experienced CRO? Some sponsor audits throughout the studies or after obtaining such results?


What I'm questioning is not even the results from this specific study, but yes, it was audited and no problem was found. I'm trying to understand whether that is a concern point for bioequivalence in general. The big question would be "how many studies have passed with 28 subjects or less and shouldn't pass actually?" or "how many studies have failed with 28 subjects or less and should pass actualy?". You see that the variability for both drugs in the pilot studies was not very high for the N used, so we would expect it to be predictive.

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,572 registered users;
139 visitors (0 registered, 139 guests [including 29 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:41 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Scientists cannot simply hang their subjectivities
up on a hook outside the laboratory door.    Ruth Bleier

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