IR versus MR (not BE!) [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2007-04-02 01:18 (7015 d 04:32 ago) – Posting: # 612
Views: 5,609

Dear Daniel!

Just to keep terminology high: it's not possible to demonstrate bioequivalence between MR and IR, because this would imply no differences both in extend and rate (only possible for IR v.s. IR, or MR v.s. MR).

At least for the EU, even if your MR OAD formulation is mimicking an IR formulation given BID, and you succeed with almost superimposable curves, you will have to a lot of stuff to show (food effect [dose dumping!], eventually steady state, and almost for sure a clinical study as well...; for a nice story see this post).

For an overview of work to be done see the European Note for Guidance (especially Section 4 and Appendix 1).

P.S. I agree with Gagandeep's post (we should design sampling schedules to get the highest possible amount of information from the profiles of both formulations).

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
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,571 registered users;
130 visitors (0 registered, 130 guests [including 21 identified bots]).
Forum time: 05:51 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Always listen to experts.
They’ll tell you what can’t be done and why.
Then do it.    Robert A. Heinlein

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