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

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-28 23:59 (2301 d 06:39 ago) – Posting: # 18609
Views: 10,575

Hi John,

Thanks for your response. Let me see if I can clear this up.

❝ 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%?


Kind of. I am saying that a large enough sample size can force a test product with e.g. 89% relative BA (e.g. 100mg/112mg) relative to RLD to pass. The difference between 100 and 112mg is clinically significant for this product. I am wondering if adding the condition I talked about from the beginning would help.

I was using the 100/112/125 example rather than talking about relative F to try to elucidate the clinical scenario, which I am doing a poor job of.

❝ 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.


I haven't. Thanks!

Cheers,
BF

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,101 posts in 4,857 threads, 1,644 registered users;
74 visitors (0 registered, 74 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 06:39 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

One can show the following: given any rule, however “fundamental”
or “necessary” for science, there are always circumstances
when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule,
but to adopt its opposite.    Paul Feyerabend

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