Cherry-picking [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-08-01 15:01  – Posting: # 19124
Views: 1,623

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:

Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,871 posts in 4,212 threads, 1,364 registered users;
online 9 (0 registered, 9 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 13:22 CEST

Multivariate analysis: A means of finding the answer
when you don’t know the question.    Stephen Senn

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5