Dabigatran EMA - product-specific guide [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-02-14 13:52 (589 d 12:57 ago) – Posting: # 19920
Views: 2,679

Hi nobody,

» » Aren’t you notoriously shouting “It’s the originator, stupid…”?
» Could you elaborate on this. No clue what this might mean.

See there.

» If you want a duel, choose your weapon
» :hungry:

Surströmming?

» » I’m more concerned about the first footnote in the guidance […]. Was the EMA’s PKWP not aware of the the FDA’s guidance?
»
» Narrow therapeutic range... maybe in the USA. In the EU there are no mass tort trials...

I don’t like the idea that someone widens the limits for this stuff.

» What buys you the widening for Cmax, when both parameters are highly variable? :confused:

Business as usual in all jurisdictions following the EMA’s strange approoach (i.e., WHO; ASEAN States, Australia, Brazil, Egypt, the Russian Federation, the Eurasian Economic Union, New Zealand). At least the WHO initiated a pilot phase for scaling the AUC. For HC widening the limits for AUC is acceptable (no big deal for Cmax; only the PE within 80.0–125.0%).

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
21,076 posts in 4,394 threads, 1,468 registered users;
online 2 (0 registered, 2 guests [including 1 identified bots]).
Forum time: Saturday 03:50 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

For every fact
there is an infinity of hypotheses.    Robert M. Pirsig

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