Cherry-picking [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-08-01 15:01 (990 d 22:31 ago) – Posting: # 19124
Views: 2,970

Hi Mikalai,

» I thought that something like clinical pharmacology of the drug may, to some extent, reassure our NCA that safety and efficacy are not at risk?

OK, you missed the lower limit of Cmax for one API. It depends on the drug whether this imposes a risk to the patients. Efficacy is in many cases more related to AUC than to Cmax. Exceptions are f.i. painkillers where Cmax (and tmax!) is important. Safety is generally related to the upper limit of Cmax.

Now for the big but: If you consider the conventional limits of 80–125% Cmax being too strict, you should have stated wider limits (or aim at reference-scaling in a replicate design if CVwR >30%) already in the protocol and discussed that with the agency before performing the study.
It smells of cherry-picking if you fail to show BE according to the protocol and afterwards :blahblah: about a patient’s risk which you consider not relevant for any reason. :cherry picking:

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
21,419 posts in 4,475 threads, 1,509 registered users;
online 11 (0 registered, 11 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 13:32 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Nothing fails like success because you do not learn anything from it.
The only thing we ever learn from is failure.
Success only confirms our superstitions.    Kenneth E. Boulding

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