Impact of Parenteral hydration in a BE study [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by ElMaestro  – Belgium?, 2019-11-15 21:51 (320 d 03:28 ago) – Posting: # 20810
Views: 1,439


thanks for telling this story.
I would consider it a potentially serious issue. Did the PI or delegates note anything about protocol deviations or AEs necessitating parenteral fluids?
If no, then I'd say here a big issue (big as in major or critical).
I would collect immediately (copies of):
1. The delegation logs
2. Source docs for AEs and PDs, and any forms documenting the administration of the fluids and the reason for doing so.
3. CRFs
And I would note down for posterity in writing, if written docs (in the form of PDs or AEs) do not exist just in case you worry about post-hoc back-dating of documentation.

I am not so worried about the BE proof itself, but about the ethics, just like Hötzi points out. The sponsor is in a serious regulatory/ethical and possible legal limbo if a subject has, say, a case of fever and septicemia after the parenteral administration (this will likely end up as a discussion where the trial insurer and the doctor's / clinic's insurer are pointing at each other, and the subjects will accordingly suffer).

I could be wrong, but...

Best regards,

R's base package has 274 reserved words and operators, along with 1761 functions. I can use 18 of them (about 14 of them properly). I believe this makes me the Donald Trump of programming.

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,090 posts in 4,398 threads, 1,469 registered users;
online 12 (0 registered, 12 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: Thursday 02:19 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

In these days, a man who says a thing cannot be done
is quite apt to be interrupted by some idiot doing it.    Elbert Green Hubbard

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