EMA vs. FDA [BE/BA News]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2012-03-07 11:26 (5220 d 09:41 ago) – Posting: # 8224
Views: 28,161

Dear Helmut,

❝ These recommendations are inline with recent product-specific guidances of the FDA (methylphenidate ER capsules: fasting 3 h, fed 4 h, zolpidem ER tablet: fasting 1.5 h, fed no cut-off).


with the exception that the FDA recommends (T = cut-off time)

Cmax,                     AUC(0-T), AUC(T-tlast) and AUC(0-inf)

whereas the EMA demands

Cmax(0-T), Cmax(T-tlast), AUC(0-T), AUC(T-tlast)

if I interpret the Q&A and the product specific guidances right.
As always "International harmonisation" :no:. But 50% accordance is better then nothing.

Can we expect an additional burden by the two Cmax values?

What to do in cases where there are no distinct Cmax in both phases like the concentration-time curves of Methylphenidate ER products shown on slide 43 (bottom left) of the presentation you have linked?

BTW: I can't see any return of clinical reasoning in the EMA Q&A.

"The identification of this cut-off time point should aim to describe the plasma concentrations in the first phase ... :blahblah:".


Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
165 visitors (0 registered, 165 guests [including 32 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:07 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Scientists cannot simply hang their subjectivities
up on a hook outside the laboratory door.    Ruth Bleier

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