Not for HVDPs? [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-10-04 14:05 (487 d 23:15 ago) – Posting: # 22618
Views: 1,448

Dear Detlew,

❝ ❝ One of my 4-period full replicate studies (143 subjects, Method A)

❝ Looks not too bad for a log-normal ;-).

More details… The reference formulation in this study was terrible; CVwR twice of CVwT, many subjects with low AUCs after R. Distributions of studentized model residuals heavy-tailed. Since CVwT <30%, this was a HVDP and not a HVD. Adjusting the AUC would make things worse.
90% CIs (Method B, Satterthwaite’s df):
AUC0–∞:    111.17 – 123.79%
AUC0–∞·k: 113.89 – 132.70%



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
22,478 posts in 4,708 threads, 1,604 registered users;
10 visitors (0 registered, 10 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:21 CET (Europe/Vienna)

If you don’t like something change it;
if you can’t change it, change the way you think about it.    Mary Engelbreit

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