Risking Refuse-to-Receive [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-03-28 13:25 (1825 d 11:38 ago) – Posting: # 18599
Views: 2,764

Hi sudy,

❝ […] can we use RSABE approach in case if we get ISCV-reference > 30% for any one of the PK parameter Cmax or partial AUCs, instead of using 90% CI calculation to prove the bioequivalence?

The guidance clearly states:

The 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean test/reference (T/R) ratios for the above five Cmax and AUC metrics (Cmax, AUC0-T1, AUCT1-T2, AUCT2-T3, AUC0-∞) should fall within the limits of 80-125%.

Without a controlled correspondence you will risk an RTR because according to

❝ The OGD recommendation did not discuss anything about this case, as we know that methylphenidate is not a HVD.

In my experience you will get the highest CV in the first partial AUC of the fasting study. I never saw a high CV of Cmax… A CVwR >30% of AUC0-3 is extremely unlikely.

@John: Other experiences?

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
22,555 posts in 4,724 threads, 1,606 registered users;
19 visitors (1 registered, 18 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:03 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Learning of many things
does not teach intelligence.    Heraclitus of Ephesus

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