Truncation (FDA: no HVDs) [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2012-08-14 16:18 (5061 d 22:49 ago) – Posting: # 9061
Views: 4,877

Dear Hiren!

❝ How to prove that there is no high variability in Distribution and Clearance phase for using truncated AUC approach for USFDA?


Very good question! I was always wondering myself what is the rationale behind this statement in FDA’s guidance (contrary to EMA’s where truncation is acceptable for all IR products). One could only prove lacking high variability in distribution and clearance (CVintra <30%) by administering a solution (!) twice.
Since this variability is expected to be less than the variability seen after administration of a formulation, maybe reference to literature data or previous studies (where CVintra was <30%) is sufficient as well.

Does anybody have some practical experiences?


P.S.: Do you have an answer to my question at the end of this post?

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;
118 visitors (0 registered, 118 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:07 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Scientists often have a naïve faith that
if only they could discover enough facts about a problem,
these facts would somehow arrange themselves
in a compelling and true solution.    Theodosius Dobzhansky

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