What a relief! [BE/BA News]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-06-21 16:12 (1492 d 12:50 ago) – Posting: # 21556
Views: 2,342

Hi ElMaestro,

check this out.

THX for that one!

"[…] it is considered acceptable that low-lier profiles can be excluded from statistical analysis […] if they occur with the same or lower frequency in the test product compared to the reference product."

(my emphasis)
One-sided Fisher’s exact test or gut feeling? See this post.

❝ Technically, it could get a little involved: If you have n observations, of which m may be less than 10% of the (n-m) rest of observations, then identifying those m observations is computationally very different from anything else we usually encounter in BE. The approach can rightfully be called a kind of m'th order jackknife but we do not need to traverse all permutations to find the m observations.

Correct. Little bit tricky.

❝ I think it is a brave and much needed leap forward on the part of the regulators that they allow it. Dasatinib has caused lots of headaches and peptic ulcers at Sponsors and CROs globally. Those days may be gone. :-)

Yep. What surprises me is the footnote (as in many product-specific guidances of the EMA).
Well, we know that the CHMP’s PKWP reviewed a lot of studies. The ones I’m aware of showed – without an exception – highly variable Cmax.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
23,113 posts in 4,858 threads, 1,644 registered users;
49 visitors (0 registered, 49 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 05:03 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

You can’t really say “similar” if it’s the same again you want.
“Similar” means something different.    Anthony Burgess

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