Sulfasalazine: Bioequivalence Study [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2011-06-25 15:18 (5476 d 15:19 ago) – Posting: # 7174
Views: 9,132

Dear Ramesh,

the usual question: for which country?

If you want to go to the US, ask the FDA’s review staff whether reference-scaling is acceptable. In conventional 2×2 cross-over studies we found sulfasalazine and 5-ASA to be highly variable (CVintra 40–50 %; both for AUC and Cmax). Other metabolites were nicer (sulfapyridine ≈13 %, N-acetyl-sulfapyridine ≈8 %, N-acetyl-5-ASA ≈23 %) – but the FDA is not asking for them. If you are thinking to opt for urine, forget it: sulfasalazine 60-70 %, sulfapyridine 15-25 %, N-acetyl-sulfapyridine 23-30 %, hydroxy-sulfapyridine 25-30 %, hydroxy-N-acetyl-sulfapyridine 20-25 %).

For the EMA you have to go with the parent. Convincing them that sulfasalazine is a pro-drug (I would say so) would not help because 5-ASA is highly variable as well. Scaling is acceptable for Cmax only…

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;
111 visitors (0 registered, 111 guests [including 16 identified bots]).
Forum time: 06:37 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