Clinical Endpoint Bioequivalence study [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by sury – India, 2019-04-08 13:29  – Posting: # 20130
Views: 666

Hii all
Hope all are doing well!
I have recently got an bioequivalence study with clinical endpoints for some drug
In OGD it states that

“To establish bioequivalence, the 90% confidence interval of the test/reference ratio of the mean should be contained within [0.80, 1.25], using the per protocol (PP) population.”

The scores of the clinical endpoint shall be as follows
“Score the oral lesions and specific signs and symptoms of oropharyngeal candidiasis at each visit using the following two scoring systems:
  1. Oral lesions score (Murray scale)
    0=none
    1=single, localized
    2=multiple, localized
    3=extensive, confluent
  2. Signs and Symptoms score (e.g., erythema, thrush, mucositis, odynophagia, burning/soreness, xerostomia, modified taste, pharyngeal irritation)
    0=absent
    1=mild
    2=moderate
    3=severe”
For the above, do we need to convert the grading (0,1,2,3) to log transformed data and conduct the statistical analysis?

As the above states that 20% difference is accepted, then in normal bioequivalence case (if untransformed data), it should be 80.00-120.00?


Correct me if I am wrong?


Best regards

Complete thread:

Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,537 posts in 4,144 threads, 1,338 registered users;
online 17 (0 registered, 17 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 17:21 CEST

When puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents –
a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless,
completely disappeared from large sectors
of the American experience.    Stephen Jay Gould

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5