Not for HVDPs? [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-10-04 14:05 (721 d 20:46 ago) – Posting: # 22618
Views: 1,839

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%

[image]

[image]


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

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,759 posts in 4,775 threads, 1,628 registered users;
21 visitors (0 registered, 21 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:51 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one,
take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory
nor the problem which it was intended to solve.    Karl R. Popper

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