tmax; another example [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2008-12-25 16:59 (5962 d 15:43 ago) – Posting: # 2980
Views: 23,090

Dear all,

another recent dataset. The SmPC of the reference states median tmax with 2.75 h.

Nonparametric (planned) evaluation:
Median Tmax (ref) 4.8333 h
Hodges-Lehmann estimate -0.1042
92.66% CI: -1.2416, +1.2583 [AR: -0.8120,+0.8120] not BE

Partial AUC truncated at SmPC's (labeled) median tmax (EU?)
GMR: 85.87%
90% CI: 69.15%, 106.6% not BE
CVintra: 31.38%

Partial AUC truncated at median tmax (ref) from study USA (EU?)
GMR: 82.43%
90% CI: 73.28%, 92.71% not BE
CVintra: 16.75%

Partial AUC truncated individually at tmax (ref) - Canada
GMR: 81.21%
90% CI: 70.61%, 93.40% not BE
CVintra: 19.98%

CVintra in the study were 9.24% (AUCt) and 19.6% (Cmax). All methods agree, but variability of partial areas were quite high (I've performed 13 studies with this formulation, so we had enough sampling points planned to properly characterize the peak).

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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,671 registered users;
34 visitors (0 registered, 34 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:43 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The difference between a surrogate and a true endpoint
is like the difference between a cheque and cash.
You can get the cheque earlier but then,
of course, it might bounce.    Stephen Senn

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