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

Hi,

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,
ElMaestro

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:

Activity
 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
HTML5