EMA vs. rest of the world [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-10-18 16:42 (4266 d 05:52 ago) – Posting: # 11700
Views: 26,354

Hi Kumar,

❝ That means if I am adopting method C EU regulators will not accept or may raise serious questions on the design.


Yes, that will be possible. See the case studies in this presentation (slides 43–45). EMA* obviously believes to be very clever – which awaits proof.

❝ In Canadian guideline they have recommended method C.


Correct – following recommendations of the authors. Method C is also recommended by the FDA. Not surprising, since this method was developed by the the non-profit organization PQRI (members: FDA/CDER, Health Canada, USP, AAPS, CHPA, PhRMA,…). FDA’s Donald Schuirmann is one of the authors.

❝ Is there any recommendations for two stage design in EU guidelines like Canada.


Not that I recall. When it comes to two-stage designs the GL is crap. See also Shuanghe’s exeriences and my reply.



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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,673 registered users;
309 visitors (0 registered, 309 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:35 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Reach for the stars,
even if you have to stand on a cactus.    Susan Longacre

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