Final EMA oracle [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2010-02-01 12:53 (5617 d 06:42 ago) – Posting: # 4672
Views: 24,665

Dear Helmut, dear all!

❝ The eagle has landed. The final BE-Guideline was published today.


❝ Fascinating!


Really!
All in all we can live with that I mean (of course we must, no chance to do not). Some goodies, some 'badies', some half cooked. Some clear like the delphian Pythia.

But I have to read it again and again to have more than one question :-D.

This one is actual for me:
Section 4.1.8 Evaluation
Subject accountability
It is stated: "... In studies with more than two treatment arms (e.g. a three period study including two references, one from EU and another from USA, or a four period study including test and reference in fed and fasted states), the analysis for each comparison should be conducted excluding the data from the treatments that are not relevant for the comparison in question." (emphasis by me)

How shall I interpret this :confused:.

Do they claim that such studies should evaluated as if they consist of a series of classical 2×2 cross-over's? ("Extraction of 2×2 comparisons" in Helmut's famous lectures)

Anybody (hopefully an EMAist!) out there to enlighten me?

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,676 registered users;
30 visitors (0 registered, 30 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:36 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Philosophy, like medicine, has plenty of drugs, few good remedies,
and hardly any specific cures.    Sebastien-Roch Nicolas de Chamfort

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