MR vs. Russian experts [Design Issues]

posted by mittyri – Russia, 2015-07-30 17:23 (3479 d 17:32 ago) – Posting: # 15176
Views: 6,225

Hi BE-proff,

❝ I heard about cases when single-dose study didn't demonstrate BE between modified and immediate forms.


What do you mean?
EMA MR GL states:
The aim of the modified release formulation is therefore, in most cases, to reach a similar total exposure (AUC) to active substanceas for the immediate release formulation. This does not necessitate that the same nominal doses are given (the modified release formulation may have a different extent of absorptionor metabolism). In general modified-release formulations are not bioequivalent to their immediate release form. Consequently PK data alone may not be sufficient for evaluatingwhether the benefit/risk ratio of the modified release formulation is comparable to the corresponding doses of the immediate release form.

❝ In this case multi-dose regime would have smoothed curves and chances would have been higher :-(


Yes, you can demonstrate the bioequivalence between MR and IR in SS. BTW do you really think that one study in steady state is sufficient to prove the rationale of development of new MR formulation? :confused:

❝ But how to explain it to experts? :confused:


Just follow the EMA MR GL, I think they will be satisfied :-D

Kind regards,
Mittyri

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,376 posts in 4,912 threads, 1,664 registered users;
185 visitors (0 registered, 185 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:55 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Every system is perfectly designed
to get the results it gets.    Paul B. Batalden

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