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

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-28 22:05 (2013 d 23:02 ago) – Posting: # 18605
Views: 9,536

Dear ElMaestro,

You said:

❝ If you have reason to think the product is BE, then you have reason to apply a sample size appropriate for demonstrating it.

I fully agree with this - which is why i brought up that example. In the previous post you mentioned that we don't want to punish folks with large sample sizes. My intent is prevent maliciously large sample sizes.

Perhaps one way to do so is impose a GMR of 1 within CI limit, and the other is to enforce appropriate sample size. The latter requires assumption of Swr and power, which could be potentially exaggerated.

❝ Can you re-word this? I cannot understand what you mean.

Sorry for my english. Assume there is a current drug approved at doses 100, 112, and 125mg. The difference in dosing is clinically important.

My motivation for the original question: it is conceivable that a one could find T(100mg) and R(112mg) BE with a large enough sample. It is also conceivable that one may find 125mg BE with 112mg. This would cause substantial risk of harm. I thought that perhaps imposing the CI through GMR of 1 limit may prevent this from happening.


Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,764 posts in 4,776 threads, 1,628 registered users;
18 visitors (0 registered, 18 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: 21:08 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The object of statistics is information.
The objective of statistics is the understanding of information
contained in data.    Irwin and Marylees Miller

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