Recommendations to bioequivalence study of Rivaroxaban: FDA vs EMA [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Mauricio Sampaio  – Brazil, 2017-07-19 18:55 (2767 d 11:24 ago) – Posting: # 17561
Views: 3,129

Dear, according recommendations from FDA: "Rivaroxaban demonstrated a steep exposure-response relationship for both efficacy and safety; therefore applicants should not use the reference-scaled average bioequivalence (BE) approach to widen the BE limits for rivaroxaban BE evaluation. Applicants should use the average BE approach with BE limits of 80-125%. The within-subject variability of test (T) and reference (R) products should be compared, and the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval for the test-to-reference ratio of the within-subject variability should be ≤ 2.5".

Guidance: UCM461150

On the other hand, EMA suggests "two single dose studies, since there is a different food effect resulting in different food recommendations. One study under fasting conditions with the 10 mg strength and one study under fed conditions with the 20 mg strength".

Scientific_guideline_WC500195126.

Is there right or wrong in this case? Or are there two different criterias to prove the same? :confused:

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,380 posts in 4,914 threads, 1,665 registered users;
79 visitors (0 registered, 79 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 05:19 CET (Europe/Vienna)

When people learn no tools of judgment
and merely follow their hopes,
the seeds of political manipulation are sown.    Stephen Jay Gould

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