Regulatory acceptance of PowerTOST [Software]

posted by ElMaestro  – Belgium?, 2016-06-04 16:12 (1578 d 13:16 ago) – Posting: # 16400
Views: 7,333

Hi BE-proff,

as far as I know PowerTOST and other packages will generally be accepted.
Power is usually the sponsor's problem: It is the chance of showing BE when a set of assumptions are met. It usually does not affect patient's risk and so isn't where you get the most deficiency letters. At the end of the day, your assumptions are guess and guesses tend to have a lot of uncertainty, so power is in that perspective not a question of having a boatload of decimals right. Besides there is no regulatory power minimum or maximum though 80% or thereabouts is quite common.
Regulatory questions -or inspection triggers- may arise from bad guesses; for example it may be somewhat unethical to assume a CV of 8% and a GMR of 100.00% for most drugs (you'd be including too few patients for a realistic chance of showing BE). Thus, what the industry generally needs is a healthy dose of common sense rather than validation of power-calculating software to the 17th decimal. It is difficult to validate someone's ability to guess well anyhow.

I could be wrong, but...

Best regards,

R's base package has 274 reserved words and operators, along with 1761 functions. I can use 18 of them (about 14 of them properly). I believe this makes me the Donald Trump of programming.

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,086 posts in 4,398 threads, 1,468 registered users;
online 4 (0 registered, 4 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 05:29 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

When puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents 
a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless,
completely disappeared from large sectors
of the American experience.    Stephen Jay Gould

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