Recommendations to bioequivalence study of Rivaroxaban: FDA vs EMA [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Mauricio Sampaio  – Brazil, 2017-07-19 18:55 (2444 d 17:27 ago) – Posting: # 17561
Views: 2,722

Dear, according recommendations from FDA: "Rivaroxaban demonstrated a steep exposure-response relationship for both efficacy and safety; therefore applicants should not use the reference-scaled average bioequivalence (BE) approach to widen the BE limits for rivaroxaban BE evaluation. Applicants should use the average BE approach with BE limits of 80-125%. The within-subject variability of test (T) and reference (R) products should be compared, and the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval for the test-to-reference ratio of the within-subject variability should be ≤ 2.5".

Guidance: UCM461150

On the other hand, EMA suggests "two single dose studies, since there is a different food effect resulting in different food recommendations. One study under fasting conditions with the 10 mg strength and one study under fed conditions with the 20 mg strength".

Scientific_guideline_WC500195126.

Is there right or wrong in this case? Or are there two different criterias to prove the same? :confused:

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
110 visitors (0 registered, 110 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:22 CET (Europe/Vienna)

With four parameters I can fit an elephant,
and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.    John von Neumann

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