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

posted by Elena777 – Belarus, 2019-09-09 19:34 (328 d 18:35 ago) – Posting: # 20564
Views: 4,705

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:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,962 posts in 4,373 threads, 1,459 registered users;
online 14 (0 registered, 14 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 14:10 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Garbage in, garbage out.
It’s very very simple.    Anders Fuglsang

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