[Opinion] Should the 90% CI for GMR be required to encompass 1 [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-28 21:23 (2656 d 20:08 ago) – Posting: # 18603
Views: 12,159

Dear ElMaestro,

Thank you for your input. I agree that this rule would punish sponsors have high sample sizes.

I understand this is also a potential mechanism of abuse to get poor drugs approved: Sponsors may increase sample sizes arbitrarily to meet BE. Would my proposed approach prevent that?

Lets take a drug that comes in 100, 112, and 125. Theoretically, a sponsor could get 100, 112, AND 125 dosage forms (assuming CMC doesn't catch it) approved for 112 if they use sample sizes big enough :-) This is my biggest concern.

Thanks again for your input -
bebac_fan


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[Helmut]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,427 posts in 4,929 threads, 1,677 registered users;
39 visitors (0 registered, 39 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:32 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Many people tend to look at programming styles and languages like religions:
if you belong to one, you cannot belong to others.
But this analogy is another fallacy.    Niklaus Wirth

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