Underrepresentation of female subjects in BE study to register Generic [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by ping4santosh  – India, 2020-03-11 17:15 (1062 d 13:48 ago) – Posting: # 21254
Views: 4,087

Hi ElMaestro,

It's not a random flutter. Females actually fall back on bioequivalncy. Cmax at 75% and range was lower too. Pioneer product behaved similar way. So it's not random. You are right. The females also has higher variance.

I didn't understand your last statement. Can you kindly clarify?

❝ Yes, you can likely conduct the study in males. But why would you if you think the conclusion in males can be extrapolated


Cheers,

SKM

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,481 posts in 4,710 threads, 1,603 registered users;
23 visitors (0 registered, 23 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:03 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The difference between a surrogate and a true endpoint
is like the difference between a cheque and cash.
You can get the cheque earlier but then,
of course, it might bounce.    Stephen Senn

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