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

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-28 21:23 (2548 d 20:02 ago) – Posting: # 18603
Views: 11,651

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
23,409 posts in 4,921 threads, 1,673 registered users;
16 visitors (0 registered, 16 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:26 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The best thing about being a statistician is
that you get to play in everyone’s backyard.    John W. Tukey

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