Two-stage design and 'forced bioequivalence' [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Mikalai  – Belarus, 2018-06-06 10:28 (2571 d 18:47 ago) – Posting: # 18854
Views: 7,551

Dear all,
We plan to conduct a sequential (two stage) BE study, and I am concerned with "forced bioequivalence". Specifically, if we obtain non-equivalent results in the first stage with very low power and should recruit more volunteers, how can we protect ourselves from getting into "forced bioequivalence"? In other words, how can we differentiate between underpowered trials and non-equivalent results in the sequential BE? And how can we put this (protection against "forced bioequivalence") in the protocol not to raise many questions from regulators?
Any suggestions and advice will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Mikalai

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,672 registered users;
43 visitors (0 registered, 43 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 05:15 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical researches can be divided into two sorts:
those who think that meta is better and those
who believe that pooling is fooling.    Stephen Senn

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