Good News, Bad News [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Datacollector – United Kingdom, 2019-07-27 12:09  – Posting: # 20448
Views: 677

I was involved with a regular 2 way crossover with a non endogenous compound which is not very exotic. The good news was that the study comfortably met the usual bioequivalence criteria. The less good news was that there were significant period and sequence effects for both AUC and Cmax. We are assured we can ignore the sequence effect as the usual conditions for so doing apply. Looking at the period data (treating as two parallel studies) we find the T/R point estimator lies considerably below the acceptance range, while for period 2, it is rather higher than the BE acceptance range. This has given rise to some concern. Does the observation of the difference between periods negate the finding of equivalence? I should be grateful for any advice or suggestions. I don't have any obvious reason to suspect the design or conduct of the study.

Edit: Please follow the Forum’s Policy[Helmut]

Complete thread:

 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,694 posts in 4,181 threads, 1,355 registered users;
online 8 (0 registered, 8 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 15:38 CEST

A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues
(or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and
to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment.
Arguments from authority are unacceptable.    Carl Sagan

BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz