EMA: Method A or B [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Mohamed Yehia  – Egypt, 2018-01-23 12:56 (1887 d 04:47 ago) – Posting: # 18264
Views: 3,498

❝ […] In partial replicate designs (TRR|RTR|RRT) I suggest to specify two analysis sets if data of the third period in sequence RRT is missing:

  1. Exclude subjects from the assessment of BE since the GL requires at least one treatment of T and R.

  2. Keep subjects for the estimation of CVwR.

Yes :-)

❝ ❝ I want a clarified answer please with guideline reference if applicable.

❝ The Q&A document

Thanks for the link

❝ From a purely statistical perspective my preferences are: Method C ≫ Method B > Method A. I don’t like the idea to treat subjects as a fixed effect.

That's what I believe too ;-)
Check this link: doi:10.12793/tcp.2014.22.2.78

❝ Given the observations from above, a sponsor probably would fair best with Method A only.

Of course :-D

Edit: Full quote removed. Please delete everything from the text of the original poster which is not necessary in understanding your answer; see also this post #5! doi corrected. [Helmut]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,550 posts in 4,724 threads, 1,606 registered users;
20 visitors (0 registered, 20 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:43 CET (Europe/Vienna)

If there is an exception to any rule,
and if it can be proved by observation,
that rule is wrong.    Richard Feynman

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