Lack of ISR / only 5% ISR in study with 656 samples [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2013-04-22 20:56 (4815 d 04:42 ago) – Posting: # 10461
Views: 17,210

Hi Hötzi,

sad story. I'd love to see the faces of the CMD(h) members if or when they realise that they have yet another ISR case to deal with. The details are good: the ISR seemed to work well in June, but NL's fear is it didn't in April?!?

I might be inclined to play the regulatory chicken game and go ahead full throttle. If any situation would merit a deviation from the guideline's requirement then this development would be a good candidate, wouldn't it.
Anyways to mitigate any risk, if this was a compound like meth (very -very!- low CV intra) then you'd be looking at 12-16 subjects in a 222-BE trial. Would be a cheapo and could be done and dusted by any CRO way before the end of a clockstop.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
336 visitors (0 registered, 336 guests [including 14 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:39 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The real struggle is not between the right and the left
but between the party of the thoughtful
and the party of the jerks.    Jimmy Wales

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