Deficiencies [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Relaxation  – Germany, 2018-02-02 20:41 (2297 d 19:04 ago) – Posting: # 18334
Views: 20,641

❝ ❝ But seriously, why should testing alternatives in one study require a punishment and testing in seperate studies not. Because I pay my fee in doubled overhead study costs? Or because I don't have to tell anybody of the "other study" during application :confused:?


❝ IMHO, you have to submit the study’s synopsis.


Hello Helmut.

That was what I thought myself (and would also argue in favour of by gut feeling). But at least in the EU I think we are asked to submit these for the pilot studies conducted with the formulation you apply for. As far as I remember, it is also asked for synopses from other studies during formulation development, but my guess would be that there might be a grey area in the discussion, whether a study conducted with Alternative 1 would be part of the development of Alternative 2.
I personally would argue in favour of "full disclosure", but I generally :blahblah: a lot anyway.

P.S.: I looked it up in the BE-GL: all relevant studies ... comparing the formulation applied for (i.e. same composition and manufacturing process) with a reference medicinal product marketed in the EU.
Would apply to the "tablet vs. reference and capsule vs. reference" example brough up earlier, wouldn't it? Two shots.

Best regards and a nice weekend to everybody,

Relaxation.

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,029 posts in 4,834 threads, 1,644 registered users;
28 visitors (0 registered, 28 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:45 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

We must be careful not to confuse data with the abstractions
we use to analyze them.    William James

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