Conservative study planning [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-09-02 14:42 (4677 d 13:41 ago) – Posting: # 11406
Views: 9,044

Hi Kumar,

❝ We have conducted two fed studies for a particular molecule,…


More important: same formulation?

❝ From earlier published studies we found that they have conducted the study for N=30 subjects with CV: 33 and the study was passed but they are not talking about the power of the study.


“Power of the study” is meaningless. It might be that they planned for a larger deviation of test from reference and lower CV than what was later observed in the study. In order words, the study passed more or less by chance (i.e., with a higher producer’s risk).

❝ Now we want to conduct another study for the same molecule then should we go with the study 2 conducted by us or with the literature with high CV of 33%.


I would suggest to base study planning on your own results (you have little information from the literature about side conditions which have an impact on the variability: food, posture, analytical method, …). I would also suggest to be conservative and use the upper confidence limit of the CV, which for the second study is 29.7%.

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
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
144 visitors (0 registered, 144 guests [including 40 identified bots]).
Forum time: 04:23 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Scientists often have a naïve faith that
if only they could discover enough facts about a problem,
these facts would somehow arrange themselves
in a compelling and true solution.    Theodosius Dobzhansky

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