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

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2018-03-28 23:25 (2306 d 12:53 ago) – Posting: # 18606
Views: 10,548

Hi,

❝ 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.


I think your clarification above is even more confusing. Your example "T(100mg) vs R(112mg) is bioequivalent with a large enough sample size". Are you trying to say that a large enough sample size can force a 100 mg product and a 112 mg product to become bioequivalent because the BE window has a ± 20% around 100%? Please don't forget that there is a criteria on T/R total assay/potency to be within 5%. Your 110mg and 112 mg has >5% potency and that alone invalidates your example.

John

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,112 posts in 4,858 threads, 1,644 registered users;
74 visitors (0 registered, 74 guests [including 20 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:19 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It’s always fun to have your models validated,
but is way more fun to have them trashed.
Finding out you are completely wrong
is a great part of science.    G. Randall Gladstone

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