Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum 19:08 CET

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

Replicate vs. 2×2×2 [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by M.tareq - 2017-05-14 23:04  - Posting: # 17353
Views: 16,317

Hi Helmut,

Thanks for your comprehensive reply and explanation,

» while ago I reviewed a manuscript exploring the pros and cons of TSDs vs. ABEL. Was very interesting and I hope that the authors submit a revised MS soon.

Can i get the link or the name of the paper when the authors submit it ?

In General, if a drug isn't known to be HVDP and by definition of HVDP that, they have wide therapeutic index yet the CRO/Sponsor went with replicate design.

How the assessor would consider that? mean if the published literature or pilot study suggest low CV of the reference /test product yet the cro/sponsor went with replicate design?

Like abusing the use of scABE ? :confused:

» Nobody knows how to deal with this story. :-( Regulations ≠ science. Not required by the FDA…

Agree, yet i read an ANDA submission -can't find the link now- where the sponsor detected outliers based on T/R ratio of each subject and redosing of such subjects along with other subjects who exhibited normal pkp profile; though it was after reviewing with FDA regulator.

Another published paper about ibandronic acid the sponsor/CRO stated the definition of outliers using studentized residuals and boxplot to eliminate subjects with values away from the boxplot by more than 3 IQR.

My point is, as your kindly said, it's best to state in the protocol how to deal with outliers especially regarding variability estimation and proving/showing to the assessor the reasons for excluding such outlier(s) from study or reviewing it with the regulator before submission of the data?

Thanks and Best Regards.

Apologies for being information/knowledge leecher atm, will try to get my seed/leech ratio up ^^

Complete thread:

 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,158 posts in 4,081 threads, 1,308 registered users;
online 11 (2 registered, 9 guests [including 8 identified bots]).

The great tragedy of Science – the slaying
of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.    Thomas Henry Huxley

BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz