Good question, next question [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-03-03 19:42 (686 d 15:44 ago) – Posting: # 19990
Views: 4,107

Hi Nasty,

» […] information about the records where Cmax is the first point (as well as records where AUC0-t/AUC0-∞<0.8 and records where pre-dose sample > 5% Cmax). Could the regulators ban the results of the BE study with such data? Did you ever faced with this in your practice? What was the percentage of subjects with such data (for example for 0.8 it is common to suppose more than 20%)? If there is only one or two subjects with Cmax in the first point should we perform additional analysis excluding them in order to show that this doesn't affect the results if it was not stated in the protocol?

OK, let’s have a look at the guideline:

Sampling times

Reasons for exclusion

My personal summary:If nothing is stated in the protocol, assessors love a sensitivity analysis. However, if the full data set fails and the one after exclusion passes, don’t hope for too much. Then it depends on the “whole body of evidence”. If this is one study of an entire set, chances for approval are still there. If not, very unlikely.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,303 posts in 4,441 threads, 1,487 registered users;
online 14 (1 registered, 13 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 11:27 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science,
with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle
and find our way by trial and error,
building our road behind us as we proceed.    Max Born

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