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

posted by ping4santosh  – India, 2020-03-11 17:15 (2300 d 09:46 ago) – Posting: # 21254
Views: 8,042

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
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
327 visitors (0 registered, 327 guests [including 17 identified bots]).
Forum time: 04:01 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

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