Why BE testing use 90 CI [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by ElMaestro  – Belgium?, 2019-02-23 10:18 (645 d 00:45 ago) – Posting: # 19968
Views: 3,237

Hi Akash,

» Why Bioequivalence testing makes use of the 90 CI why not 95 CI which gives more accuracy?

More accuracy, what does that mean?

We have some more or less empirically justified limits of 80.00%-125.00%.
And we want a 5% risk of making the wrong conclusions in the sense of regulatory (patient's) risk; in practice this means we adopt a policy of a 5% risk of approving a product that is not BE. This is where the 90% CI comes into the equation. There is a (not more than) 5% risk associated with it (1-2*alpha).

A 95% CI would be less risky, ie. up to 2.5% chance of approving a non-BE product. Why would we want that, then alpha=5% seems to work just fine?

I could be wrong, but...

Best regards,
ElMaestro

No, of course you do not need to audit your CRO if it was inspected in 1968 by the agency of Crabongostan.

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,216 posts in 4,427 threads, 1,481 registered users;
online 22 (1 registered, 21 guests [including 17 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 11:03 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important.    T. S. Eliot

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