Ethics: no. of administrations [GxP / QC / QA]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2009-08-20 16:05 (6148 d 00:56 ago) – Posting: # 4078
Views: 10,549

Dear Muneesh!

❝ But I don't really know what is more ethical: to administer N subjects

❝ four times or 1½N subjects three times? I always thought that exposing

❝ less number of subjects to IP is more ethical.


I don't know either. From an ethical point of view, is there a difference in treating two subjects once or one subject twice? For any formulation there's a slight chance of SAEs (hypersentitivity to the API or excipients). From that perspective repeated administrations are definitely better. One the other hand in a four period study blood loss is higher and you are targeting at CVintra of the test formulation, which is not needed both for scaling (US) or widening of the acceptance range (EU).

Quite interesting discussion!

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
159 visitors (0 registered, 159 guests [including 35 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:01 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

I have finally come to the konklusion
that a good reliable set ov bowels
iz worth more to a man
than enny quantity of brains.    Josh Billings

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