Slowly going OT: BE study simulations [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2016-02-13 16:02 (2994 d 05:28 ago) – Posting: # 15989
Views: 16,126

Dear Ohlbe,

❝ Well, cough... I your example there is not much difference for AUC, agreed. But Cmax ? A difference of 4 points in the point estimate, …


Actually 5.9%!

❝ … closer to 1 with the lousy method, with 90 % CI of 78.6 - 99.8 % with the lousy method against 71.1 - 96.4 % with the good method... In this specific example I would say that yes, it could have mattered, and made a difference between a failing study and a passing study !


Agreed. I guess the difference would have been smaller if we didn’t stop the LC/MS-MS method after 12 subjects (in the good ol’ days of plausibility reviews). The lousy method was validated and all batches passed. Nowadays such a method likely would not survive the ISR. ;-)

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
22,993 posts in 4,828 threads, 1,651 registered users;
143 visitors (0 registered, 143 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:30 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Never never never never use Excel.
Not even for calculation of arithmetic means.    Martin Wolfsegger

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