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

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-28 23:57 (1345 d 19:05 ago) – Posting: # 18611
Views: 8,833

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
21,785 posts in 4,556 threads, 1,547 registered users;
online 14 (0 registered, 14 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 18:02 CET (Europe/Vienna)

A drug is that substance which, when injected into a rat,
will produce a scientific report.    Anonymous

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