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

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-28 23:57 (1602 d 18:53 ago) – Posting: # 18611
Views: 9,154

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:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,305 posts in 4,668 threads, 1,587 registered users;
online 8 (1 registered, 7 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 18:50 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

There is no point in being precise when you don’t know
what you’re talking about.    attributed to John Tukey

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