Which “target regulation”? [Regulatives / Guidelines]
without information about the country/regulation you are aiming at, it is difficult to answer. The primary purpose of the WHO’s guidelines is to support regulatory agencies of countries which don’t have their own ones so far – not applicants. Hence, the WHO’s GLs are often ambiguous (listing different approaches to select from). Until you find out which path “your” regulator will follow, picking out something from the WHO’s GLs is risky. The GL you are referring to is a good example.
❝ 1. Bioequivalence will be plan in fed state or fasting?
See what is stated in the section “Pharmacokinetics of Sofosbuvir” about the food effect, especially
[…] administration is recommended with food in the Summary of Product Characteristics approved by the EMA, although it can be taken irrespective of meals according to the Product Labelling approved by the FDA.
You were quoting the (August 2015) label of the FDA’s RLD. Since for IR products the fasting state is considered more sensitive to detect differences between formulations – and the reference product could be administered regardless the pranial state – you would be right. However, the FDA’s product-specific guidance (June 2015) recommends two studies (fasting, fed).*
If your “target regulation” follows the WHO’s product-specific GL or the EMA’s general BE-GL (administration according to the SmPC), only one study in fed state.*
❝ 2. should the sofosbuvir metabolite also analyzed?
No (acc. to WHO, FDA, EMA).
❝ 3. What will be the minimum sample size?
Depends on which minimum power is acceptable for you. Many GLs recommend 80 – 90%.
The WHO’s GL states that Cmax might be highly variable (CVwR 54%) in fed state. If your target regulation accepts reference-scaling (widening of the acceptance range) you could follow the EMA’s approach given in the BE-GL (Average Bioequivalence with Expanding Limits, ABEL). If not, the common acceptance range of 80 – 125% for ABE is applicable. For HVD(P)s a T/R-ratio of not “better” than 0.90 should be assumed (regardless whether you intent to design the study for evaluation by ABE or ABEL). If you plan for 80% power this translates into the following sample sizes:
design ABE ABEL
──────────────────────
RT|TR 230 NA
RTRT|TRTR 116 28
RTR|TRT 172 44
RRT|RTR|TRR 174 42
design RSABE
──────────────────
RTRT|TRTR 22
RTR|TRT 34
RRT|RTR|TRR 30
- BTW, this makes an interesting story. Obviously the originator showed in one study lacking food effects (which lead to the FDA’s label) and in another one a 1.8fold increase in AUC (which lead to the EMA’s SmPC). Strange, politely speaking. The FDA seems to be aware of that, since asking in the product-specific guidance for two studies. If the FDA trusts in the study which lead to approval why are they asking for a fed study as well? If they have other information (which contradicts the approved label) why they don’t ask the originator for the data? Given the low variability of AUC no statistics is needed to see a significant food effect with a PE of ~180%. Regulators are a strange bunch of people sometimes.
According to the Australian PAR the originator performed two food effect studies:The findings of both were in agreement; compared with the fasted state, food, specifically a high-fat meal, resulted in a slower rate of absorption of SOF [Sofosbuvir] (high-fat meal vs. fasted; prolonged Tmax: 1.5 vs. 0.5 hrs) with no substantial alteration in the extent of absorption (high-fat meal vs. fasted; mean AUCinf increased 67–91%). […] The equivalence criterion for a lack of food effect was not met; however, Cmax decrease was not considered clinically significant. Moreover, whilst SOF dosing in Phase 2 and 3 clinical studies was recommended without regard to food, in reality, SOF when co-administered with RBV [Ribavirin] in Phase III studies, was dosed with food, as required in the RBV prescribing information.
(bold in the original)
Fascinating that an increase of AUC by ~80% was judged Down Under to be not substantial…
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png)
Helmut Schütz
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png)
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- Bioequivalence study of Sofosbuvir Dr Naghma Hashmi 2016-03-18 12:34 [Regulatives / Guidelines]
- Which “target regulation”?Helmut 2016-03-18 14:23
- Bioequivalence study of Sofosbuvir Dr Naghma Hashmi 2016-03-19 10:59
- No “WHO regulation”! Helmut 2016-03-19 18:03
- No “WHO regulation”! Dr Naghma Hashmi 2016-03-22 04:51
- Science ≠ truth ∧ regulations ≠ science Helmut 2016-03-22 14:06
- No “WHO regulation”! Dr Naghma Hashmi 2016-03-22 04:51
- No “WHO regulation”! Helmut 2016-03-19 18:03
- Which “target regulation”? nobody 2016-04-27 09:15
- Bioequivalence study of Sofosbuvir Dr Naghma Hashmi 2016-03-19 10:59
- Which “target regulation”?Helmut 2016-03-18 14:23