Metrics for absorption [NCA / SHAM]

posted by nobody – 2019-04-15 15:48 (2213 d 20:58 ago) – Posting: # 20168
Views: 10,025
(edited on 2019-04-15 17:01)

❝ Hi nobody,


Ho Vienna


❝ If we have different metrics likely it would be better to chose one with high sensitivity.


Not more than needed. Over-discriminatory testing is a pain. I like the idea of "problem -> solution", not the other way around.

❝ IMHO, the clinical relevance of the rate of absorption is doubtful. Ask a clinician about Cmax and he will tell you that is important for safety,


Safety is part of clinics as well. If your patients die from toxicity or headache or bleeding or whatever you will learn the hard way.

❝ Remember that current regulatory thinking concentrates on the biopharmaceutical performance of the formulation in the first place. Mentioning clinical relevance outs you as a dinosaur of BE. :-D


Yeah, but in the end you are not interested in differences in "biopharm. performance" not reflecting any meaningful (= clinically relevant) differences between two formulations, or?
—
Kindest regards, nobody

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,670 registered users;
77 visitors (0 registered, 77 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:47 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they
also make very poor observations.    Claude Bernard

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