FA0(1) in PHX: works (& more questions) [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-08-30 19:07 (4275 d 20:52 ago) – Posting: # 11396
Views: 9,629

Hi Linda!

❝ I was able to run both LinMix and Bioeq in Phoenix and their results matched. Also when I excluded the four subjects with incomplete data, I got:

PE=  90.503   90% CI: 73.561–111.347

❝ so the same as what Detlew posted in his next post with the SAS results. I emailed you a project.


THX, confirmed. I screwed up the setup (correct BE but wrong LME) – therefore the “difference”. :crying:

So is FA0(1) the solution? Is FDA’s code – calling for FA0(2)mandatory (aka “Holy Grail”)? As Wolfgang pointed out above in the general BE guidance FDA stated:

In the Random statement, TYPE=FA0(2) could possibly be replaced by TYPE=CSH.

As we have seen in the “nonconvergent” data sets this doesn’t help at all. “Could possibly be replaced by” FA0(1) as well?
Or abandon the partial replicate completely and opt for TRT|RTR – which seems to “work” according to Detlew’s findings?

To make a long story short: What will hurt FDA more or less likely accept?

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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,668 registered users;
108 visitors (0 registered, 108 guests [including 62 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:59 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Don’t undertake a project
unless it’s manifestly important
and nearly impossible.    Edwin H. Land

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