European history lesson [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-04-04 04:20 (4835 d 20:39 ago) – Posting: # 10339
Views: 5,097

Hi Clare,

❝ If I have understood the current EMA guidelines correctly, the acceptance limits can only be widened if the intra-subject CV > 30% in the BE study and if prospectively specified in the protocol.


Almost correct (as Dr. Gunasakaran already pointed out). Currently you have to state in the protocol:
  1. Intention to widen the acceptance range based on [L, U] = ℯ∓0.760·sWR if CVWR >30% (and limited with 50%) – GMR within 80.00–125.00%;
    unscaled AR (80.00–125.00%) otherwise.
  2. Sound justification that the widening is clinically irrelevant.
Don’t forget the second point.

❝ Nevertheless, there are UKPARs showing that widened acceptance limits have been allowed without a replicate study design.


Since the Q&A-document (July 2006) CVWR >30% in a replicate design was required in order to widen the limits (for Cmax only) to 75.00–133.33%.
Before it was possible to widen the limits to e.g. 75.00–133.33% without a replicate design. Note the “e.g.”! There were many products approved with an AR of 70.00–142.86%. In exceptional cases widening was also accepted for AUC…

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
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,571 registered users;
237 visitors (0 registered, 237 guests [including 38 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:59 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It requires a very unusual mind
to undertake the analysis of the obvious.    Alfred North Whitehead

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