Lucas
★    

Brazil,
2014-10-16 19:00
(3451 d 02:39 ago)

Posting: # 13728
Views: 6,273
 

 Classification: BE x Other Clinical Studies (in phases) [Off Topic]

Hello dear colleagues.

I have a doubt regarding to the classification of a bioequivalence study. We know that a BE study is a comparative pharmacokinetic assay that demonstrates, indirectly, the efficacy and safety of a new formulation, based on a comparator that already proved to be safe and effective through a series of studies in the development process (phases I, II, III, IV). So, would it be correct to say BE studies belongs to one of the 4 phases previously described? I’ve seen some researchers classifying BE as a phase I study, but I’m not so sure if that is, in concept, the correct classification or if BE can be classified in one of those 4 phases. IMHO if I had to classify BE in one of these 4 classes, I would say it is in “phase III” (for this is the phase in which comparative studies are made), specifically in terms of therapeutic equivalence. Would you please let me know your opinion in that matter?

:confused:
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2014-10-16 19:18
(3451 d 02:21 ago)

@ Lucas
Posting: # 13729
Views: 5,319
 

 Phase I, I/IV, or what?

Hi Lucas,

❝ IMHO if I had to classify BE in one of these 4 classes, I would say it is in “phase III” (for this is the phase in which comparative studies are made), specifically in terms of therapeutic equivalence.


Phase III is done in patients (endpoints efficacy & safety), whereas BE mainly employs healthy subjects. If have seen many wordings in protocols. Some state Phase I (PK in healthy subjects), some I/IV (I for the test and IV for the reference), and some elegantly circumnavigate all terminology issues and state just “human pharmacology”. Pick whatever you like. You will not loose the war by using a “wrong” term.

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
Weidson
☆    

Brazil,
2014-10-22 00:12
(3445 d 21:27 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 13760
Views: 5,251
 

 Phase I, I/IV, or what?

Hello everybody.

Has been a while since I make a comment on the forum and since this topic is also of my interest, I’d like to use your statements and to express my opinion on the matter.

❝ You will not loose the war by using a “wrong” term


Indeed, no one will lose the war by using a wrong term. However, depending on the level of maturity of the sponsor of the study, he can make a bad judgement about your knowledge regarding clinical trials. The fact is that many companies still insists on putting a BE study in one of the 4 phases of the clinical trials that are, IMHO, just fitted for a new drug (and not a new formulation of a known drug). I really don’t see the point in that!!!!

❝ Phase III is done in patients (endpoints efficacy & safety), whereas BE mainly employs healthy subjects


I’m not sure if the study’s classification based on its population (either patients or healthy volunteers) would be the best way to recognize the phase, after all a clinical trial of bioequivalence can be conducted also with patients. The truth is that when these 4 phases were envisioned there were no generic copies (these would come later). Through is all, I believe that if it was really necessary to choose one of the four phases it would be more safe to classify the study based on its objectives, in what is going to be investigated and among the general objectives of each phase. In this sense I’ve made, based on my bibliographic surveys, a summary description of the objectives of each one of the phases of development of a new drug (again, not for a generic drug) so that we could try to identify the one that most fits to BE:

Phase I: Pharmacology description of the new drug (e.g. assessment of absolute bioavailability, dose proportionality, drug to drug interaction, etc.) and assessment of toxicity of the drug (dose scalling studies).

Phase II: Preliminar description of the efficacy (isolated) and deepening of the knowledge aquired in phase I regarding toxicity.

Phase III: Comparison between the new drug and the standard treatment already established (equivalence, non inferiority and superiority studies)

Phase IV: Follow-up on adverse event and post-registry changes.

IMHO when it comes to BE studies, regardless of the fact that we are not assessing directly the safety and efficacy of the new drug with a standard treatment in patients, we are comparing the safety and efficacy of a new generic copy indirectly, with a certain standard elected by the regulators. In this sense, I really can’t understand the reason why one would classify BE as a phase I study. In general, what we’re investigating in a phase I study is the description of a new drug and not the comparison with another drug/formulation (please correct me if I’m wrong). That usually happens in Phase III. So I agree with Lucas’ position that if it was necessary to classify it, I would say that BE studies are something like a Phase III special.

Thank u all…
ElMaestro
★★★

Denmark,
2014-10-16 19:24
(3451 d 02:16 ago)

@ Lucas
Posting: # 13730
Views: 5,377
 

 Phase I

Hi,

in Europe it is formally referred to as a type of phase I trial on the trial application form.

If I recall correctly FDA do not classify BE as either I, II or III.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
72 visitors (0 registered, 72 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:40 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Nothing shows a lack of mathematical education more
than an overly precise calculation.    Carl Friedrich Gauß

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