please explain your opinion regarding ICH E9 [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by DavidManteigas – Portugal, 2016-09-01 15:47 (3587 d 22:00 ago) – Posting: # 16619
Views: 6,770

Hi mittiry,

The Guideline states that you should first investigate without the interaction term, not that you shouldn't include it in the model. That is more relevant for therapeutic studies IMO. For bioequivalence, at least as I saw it, centre effect it's just like group effect. I would however pray for not having a significant formulation*centre effect.

Additionally, I think the term period*centre is irrelevant and without any practical significance. The term for centre and centre*formulation already catch some of that variation anyway. But as always, you never know what is in the mind of the regulator. Period + Sequence + Formulation + Centre + Centre*formulation + Centre*Period + Subject(sequence*period)... :-D

@BE-Proff never submitted a study including group effect. We had groups sometimes, however it was decided not to include group effects since groups were separated by just a few days, no randomization was stratified by group and it was the same Unit performing the study.

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
285 visitors (0 registered, 285 guests [including 20 identified bots]).
Forum time: 13:47 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

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