Appropriate wording for a protocol [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Elena777 – Belarus, 2019-09-09 21:34 (2470 d 19:58 ago) – Posting: # 20564
Views: 20,752

Dear all, I would be pleased to get your opinion on the following. We are planning to conduct several BE studies with adaptive design using the drugs with uncertain intraCV. We have decided to use method C described by Potvin and included the description of the model C in the protocols (the same as in the corresponding scheme presented in Potvin's article). But it seems it's not enough.
  1. Should we include the information that evaluation after stage 1 completion should be performed assuming GMR=0.95?
  2. Should we describe the maximum number of subjects who can be included in whole or in stage 2?
  3. Any other information that should be clearly stated in order to be accurate and to satisfy regulatory authorities?
  4. What if BE criteria are met after stage 1, but estimated power is too low (e.g. 30%)?


Post number 20,000. :-D [Helmut]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,570 registered users;
113 visitors (0 registered, 113 guests [including 15 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:33 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The idea is to try and give all the information to help others
to judge the value of your contribution;
not just the information that leads to judgment
in one particular direction or another.    Richard Feynman

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