My observations… [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Ohlbe – France, 2021-08-24 17:47 (964 d 22:02 ago) – Posting: # 22546
Views: 2,400

Dear Helmut and Akif,

❝ My personal ranking:


❝ 1. Overly optimistic assumptions about the T/R-ratio leading to a too small sample size.

❝ 2. Assuming a unrealistically low CV.

❝ 3. Design issues (too short washout, metabolite instead of parent drug,…).


The first reason I would put on the list, whether it is the most frequent one or not, is that the test and the reference formulations are simply not bioequivalent.

I think this is important to state, because one of the root causes behind the cases of data manipulation which were reported over the last years appears to be that sponsors consider by default that their product is perfect and that it is the CRO's fault if the study failed. The CRO is under pressure to make the study pass if they want to retain the sponsor for future business. Some education and key messages are needed there.

Regards
Ohlbe

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,983 posts in 4,822 threads, 1,648 registered users;
35 visitors (0 registered, 35 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:49 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

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