Strange result [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2019-03-01 16:44 (726 d 03:38 ago) – Posting: # 19983
Views: 3,822

Hi Helmut!

» Was the study performed for Health Canada? In the 1989 draft 80–120% (untransformed data) were recommended and changed to 80–125% (log-transformed) in 1991.
» Then the study would have passed again cause –18.33% > –20% and –6.36% < +20%. However, the problem with the PE persists cause 100(–0.1833 + (–0.0636)) / 2 = –12.35% ≠ –6.14%. I don’t get it.

That I do not know (if it's for Canada) but it was a us study w US products. But your suggestion about Canada using non-transformed make sense(?) Can you tell me (or pt to me) about the Canadian guidance 89?

Thanks
J

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,355 posts in 4,458 threads, 1,493 registered users;
online 4 (0 registered, 4 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 20:23 UTC (Europe/Vienna)

It is better to be wrong than to be vague.
In trial and error, the error is the true essential.    Freeman Dyson

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