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

posted by ping4santosh  – India, 2020-03-11 17:15 (1447 d 00:54 ago) – Posting: # 21254
Views: 4,367

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
22,912 posts in 4,806 threads, 1,635 registered users;
27 visitors (0 registered, 27 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:09 CET (Europe/Vienna)

[…] an inappropriate study design is incapable of answering
a research question, no matter how careful the subsequent
methodology, conduct, analysis, and interpretation:
Flawless execution of a flawed design achieves nothing worthwhile.    J. Rick Turner

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