Paradox of tolerance [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Astea – Russia, 2020-12-01 23:34 (533 d 20:27 ago) – Posting: # 22100
Views: 3,623

Dear Preachers!

You've discovered truly a very interesting feature!
But I have some doubts in logical equality of the inflation of TIE and consumer's risk. Can you please explain my faults in the following reasoning?

Suppose we expect drug A to be highly variable (in the previous study somewhere in Antarctica W. Oodendijk et al. have got CV>30% for the reference drug). Which of the following options should we prefer to write in the protocol in order to care of the customer:

a). Use pre-specified wider limits 75-133 for Cmax (no inflation?)
b). Use the GCC-GL approach (inflation up to 21%?)

Suppose that at the end of the trial we get CV≤30% and CI within 75-133, but out of 80-125.
Then for the a-approach we should conclude the drug BE, for the b-approach - fail to conclude BE.
That is the risk of the customer to get a bad product is higher in the first approach if we define "a bad product" as a non-HVD with the limits out of 80-125.
The difference is in the fact that in the first approach we proclaim the drug to be good if it is within the limits 75-133.

Until about 2013 there were a lot of studies in Russia with 75-133 limits for Cmax even for non-HVD drugs.

"Being in minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad"

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,085 posts in 4,629 threads, 1,566 registered users;
online 12 (0 registered, 12 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: Thursday 21:01 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

That which is not controversial
is of no particular interest.    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

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