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

posted by Elena777 – Belarus, 2019-09-09 19:34 (407 d 11:55 ago) – Posting: # 20564
Views: 5,265

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
21,170 posts in 4,411 threads, 1,474 registered users;
online 4 (0 registered, 4 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 07:29 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

But it is in matters beyond the limits of mere rule
that the skill of the analyst is evinced.
He makes in silence a host of observations and inferences…    Edgar Allan Poe

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