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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-02-14 13:52 (975 d 17:26 ago) – Posting: # 19920
Views: 3,362

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
21,729 posts in 4,543 threads, 1,543 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 08:18 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Be very, very careful what you put into that head,
because you will never, ever get it out.    Thomas Wolsey

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