SD vs. MD, partial AUCs [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-06-25 21:15 (3741 d 05:57 ago) – Posting: # 10880
Views: 18,845

Hi Shuanghe!

❝ Man. It's nice to be your own boss. :ok: lucky you.

Great that my boss pays for me. Stupid personal union.

❝ ❝ According to the draft MD studies might be waived under certain circumstances:

❝ ❝ — AUCt > 90% AUC and

❝ ❝ — BE demonstrated in SD for additional PK metrics, e.g., pAUCs (Cτ under discussion).

❝ You meant AUCτ, not AUCt, right? The same goes for the following procedure in your post.

Oops, sure. AUC(0-τ) – lines 593–595.

❝ […] let's say one Reference product has to be taken twice a day so dose interval would be 12 hours. In single dose BE study let's say sampling is up to 18 hours.

❝ Then AUCτ is AUC0-12 (and Cτ, in case we are allowed to use it to replace MD study in the future, would be C12 hours), AUCt would be AUC0-18.

Exactly. My mistake.

❝ In order to avoid MD study, […]

Correct interpretation.

❝ What if AUCτ/AUC0-∞ is <90% for reference but >90% for test? So reference has risk of accumulation but test does not. Can we waive MD study?

Nope. See lines 594–595: “[…] demonstrated that the mean AUC(0-τ) after the first dose covers more than 90% of mean AUC(0-∞) for both test and reference…”

❝ I wish that we could but probably not if "less food effect contradictory to the definition of generic... :blahblah:" is any indication. But I'd like to hear all thoughts from forum members anyway.

Consensus amongst the members of the drafting group: “Better” is not “equivalent”. Article 10(3) instead of 10(1).

❝ While we were talking about parameter, I have another question.

❝ Since there're several Cmin to choose (predose, post dose, true Cmin...), Cmin was defined as "the concentration at the end of the dose interval" (in steady state). However the guideline defined the Cτ,ss as such as well. So what's the difference between them?

In a generic application you always have to show BE of Cτ,ss. With a new formulation (first MR product or comparison with IR) the global Cmin will be more interesting (that’s also the one you should use in the calculation of %PTF if you want).

❝ ❝ If the MD study passes with the conventional metrics (AUCτ, Cmax, Cmin), the fact that ‘shape’ metric(s) failed in SD will not lead to rejection of the application (rationale: BE demonstrated with conventional metrics both in SD and MD).

❝ Nice. Is this a consensus and will be written in the final guideline or just our wish?

This was a consensus. Difficult to predict whether it will be that clearly stated in the final version. But there is a logic behind. You try to pass with the additional metrics in order to apply for a waiver. Imagine two applications:So at the end both showed BE with conventional metrics in SD and MD. Rejecting the first application would be difficult to defend.

❝ ❝ There was a short discussion whether for delayed release AUC0-T & AUCT-t and for prolonged release AUC0-T & AUCT-∞ would be sufficient (dropping the respective other AUC-metrics). No consensus was reached.

❝ No kidding.:surprised: I was under the impression that pAUC will not be required for delayed-release formulation. I remembered that Dan Seiler (or someone else?) said so during the panel discussion on the 2nd day in the Budapest conference. Or I misunderstood it? :confused: D***, that would affect many of my projects.

Well, according to the draft Appendix III (lines 1170–1176) for DR no MD is required. However, this question was raised. The main concern is AUCT-∞ instead of AUCT-t for PR. Higher variability and not consistent with US/CAN. Whatever the outcome will be (and I don’t think MD will be required for DR) it will affect projects starting 1½ years from now (my guess about the timeline).

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,759 posts in 4,775 threads, 1,627 registered users;
18 visitors (0 registered, 18 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 03:12 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

A refund for defective software might be nice,
except it would bankrupt the entire software industry
in the first year.    Andrew S. Tanenbaum

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