completely new strength [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2013-10-25 01:05 (4625 d 00:18 ago) – Posting: # 11761
Views: 4,049

Hi Clarc,


❝ Now seriously: the sponsor performed some clinical trials (not in EU) and they concluded that the 35 mg test has the same clinical efficiency as the 50 mg reference. The same applies to the 70 mg vs. the 100 mg reference. If this is true, than this middle strength generic will be better tolerated by the patient (think on AE's, and of course on the price too), and the better (anticipated) compliance will make it much more cost-effective versus the concurrent generics. (....my guess)


I have a feeling that the devil is in the details. Was 35T, 50R, 70T, 100R tested in the same study? Are you able to prove a dose-response if asked to elaborate on the claim that 35T~50R and so forth. Why would you do a trial with a clinical endpoint if aiming for an EU 10.1 where BE is tightly linked specifically to PK?

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
140 visitors (0 registered, 140 guests [including 18 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:23 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses,
is in the eye of the beholder.    Laurence J. Peter

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