[Opinion] Should the 90% CI for GMR be required to encompass 1 [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-28 23:57 (1305 d 05:19 ago) – Posting: # 18611
Views: 8,773

Hi ElMaestro,

» 2. I am not aware of any problem of any kind, which has practical relevance and which can be solved by imposing a mandatory span for the CI across the 100% mark.

This is what I was looking for. Thank you for lending your knowledge!

The problem I describe may already exist for e.g. levothyroxine, with a Swr around 0.2, and many narrowly separated strengths (e.g. 100, 112, 125 mcg).

Using FDA NTID guidelines, I think it would be plausible to pass a formulation with GMR of 1.03-1.09 and another with a GMR of 0.93 - 0.99. In that case, a 100mcg tablet w/ GMR of 1.03-1.09 and 112mcg tablet w/ GMR of 0.93-0.99 would be biologically indistinguishable, which is concerning.

So we figured out that my proposed solution is not a good idea. How would you go about solving it?

Cheers,
BF

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,753 posts in 4,548 threads, 1,544 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 05:16 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

They were “so intent of making everything numerical”
that they frequently missed seeing
what was there to be seen.    Barbara McClintock

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