Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log-in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  Query: 2017-06-27 02:00 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: 669

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.

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
17,007 Posts in 3,644 Threads, 1,043 registered users;
8 users online (0 registered, 8 guests).

We absolutely must leave room for doubt
or there is no progress and no learning.
There is no learning without having to pose a question.
And a question requires doubt.
People search for certainty.
But there is no certainty.    Richard Feynman

BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz