Difference between Cminss and Ctauss? [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2014-12-04 15:21 (3401 d 18:59 ago) – Posting: # 13977
Views: 4,996

Hi Tekwani,

❝ If 90% confidence interval falls between 80-125% for only Cminss but not for Ctauss, what justification can be given?


You have to evaluate the study according to the protocol. But: EMA’s definition was given in the 2013 MR draft and already 2010 in the comments to the IR BE-GL (“By Cmin,ss we mean the con­centration at the end of the dosage interval”). Nothing really new.

❝ Can it be justified that the submission is done before the implementation of new MR guideline (which is effective from 1 June 2015), so 90% CI of Cminss should be considered?


That’s not a justification, but some organizational chitchat. Even if you claim that you were not aware of the new metric (and therefore, the study was not powered to show BE for it), you could try to scale the limits. See this post.


PS: In the past comments were published together with final guidelines. MR-GL? Nothing so far. :confused:

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
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,640 registered users;
71 visitors (0 registered, 71 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:21 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Nothing shows a lack of mathematical education more
than an overly precise calculation.    Carl Friedrich Gauß

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