Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log-in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  Query: 2017-10-17 02:09 CEST (UTC+2h)
 

Fixed combination product – clinical study instead of BE? [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by VStus - Poland, 2017-03-21 14:06  - Posting: # 17175
Views: 796

Dear Colleagues,

My understanding of the current BE paradigm is that bioequivalence trials are intended to (a) demonstrate pharmaceutical performance (quality) of Tested product versus some product of Reference quality and (b) help to link Tested product to the clinical efficacy/safety data generated for Reference product(s).

Previous paradigm was that bioequivalence trials were accepted as a reliable surrogate for clinical equivalence.

Fixed combination products follow current BE paradigm in case of substitution indications and it seems that bioequivalence is always required if we want to have a substitution indication.

Question:
Do you have experience about revercing this pattern: using clical equivalence data for substitution indications of new fixed combination product when bioequivalence has not been demonstrated?

Additional information:Section 4.5 of the current Draft FDC GL states: 'clinical efficacy/safety studies ... will not resque a failed bioequivalence study', but it is relevant only when Reference FDC is available.

What if we want to perform clinical trials to satisfy requirements of 'add-on' indications? Should we still reformulate our product to have bioequivalence for both Cmax and AUCt vs. individual components? We think that Cmax is not relevant for the clinical effect, as medications are taken continiously for a very long time periods.

We already initiated activities to get regulatory advice.

Thank you very much in advance!

Best regards, VStus

Complete thread:

Back to the forum Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum | Admin contact
17,394 Posts in 3,725 Threads, 1,071 registered users;
27 users online (0 registered, 27 guests).

The rise of biometry in this 20th century,
like that of geometry in the 3rd century before Christ,
seems to mark out one of the great ages or critical periods
in the advance of the human understanding.    R.A. Fisher

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
XHTML/CSS RSS Feed