Updated TPD BE guidances [BE/BA News]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-06-19 01:32 (854 d 09:28 ago) – Posting: # 18916
Views: 2,444

Hi BRB,

» Health Canada recently posted their updated BE guidances:

THX for the notification! These are the first ones which are not only esthetic appealing but contain sumfink coming close to a change control. ;-)

» https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/applications-submissions/guidance-documents/bioavailability-bioequivalence/conduct-analysis-comparative.pdf

No more BE based on urine data, pAUC for multiphasic release products (cut-off time(s) based on PD, not on PK like for the EMA).
This one in Section 2.3.1 is tricky:

In cases where more than two formulations are under study, or are studied under different conditions, a higher order design (that is (i.e.), more periods and sequences) should be considered. Since the intra‐subject error term of these designs has more degrees of freedom, smaller sample sizes are often adequate. The choice of a variance balanced design (Williams’ Design) or separate incomplete block design should be justified.

It doesn’t matter whether a Williams’ design or Latin Squares are used. Crucial is the evaluation. I would always opt for separate incomplete blocks (see this post).

Unchanged but still questionable:
» https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/migration/hc-sc/dhp-mps/alt_formats/pdf/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-ld/bio/comparative-bioavailability-standards-formulations-used-systemic-effects.pdf

No big deal. Strange in

2.1.1.8 Highly variable drug products
As an alternative to the use of expanded bioequivalence limits for HVDPs, the variability in the drug’s pharmacokinetics may be addressed through the study design. For example, it may be possible to justify, a priori, conducting the study in a pre‐screened sub‐population such as slow metabolizers, in which the variability may be lower for the particular drug being studied. This type of flexibility in study design does not require the application of special bioequivalence standards.

Depending on the phenotype and ethnicity we have 5–10% of poor metabolizers. Yes, concentrations will be higher but variability lower
   In God we trust;
all others must bring data.
   W. Edwards Deming


» The effective date is July 1 (Canada day!)

Happy partying [image] !


  1. Kieser M, Rauch G. Two-stage designs for cross-over bioequivalence trials. Stat Med. 2015;34(6):2403–16. doi 10.1002/sim.6487.
  2. Schütz H. Two-stage designs in bioequivalence trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(3):271-81. doi:10.1007/s00228-015-1806-2. Supplementary material.
  3. Freeman P. The performance of the two-stage analysis of two-treatment, two-period cross-over trials. Stat Med. 1989;8(12):1421–32. doi:10.1002/sim.4780081202.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,165 posts in 4,411 threads, 1,474 registered users;
online 2 (0 registered, 2 guests [including 1 identified bots]).
Forum time: Tuesday 11:00 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.    Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

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