ER vs. IR [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-12-18 15:33 (316 d 13:46 ago) – Posting: # 20994
Views: 1,745

Hi Dan,

nice that you post again. ;-)

» if the recommended dosage regimen of the IR as per product monograph IR is to be given every 4 hrs then this means that higher doses have either a safety issue or the dose/effect relationship is in disfavor of higher doses. In this case AUC alone does not matter. Consequently, a regulatory body will reject the study

I disagree. John was asking for ER (once a day) vs. IR (twice a day with τ 4 hours). In Europe that’s a hybrid application (dunno the US term; 505(b)2?). Quite common, if no ER exists and should be development for various reasons (better compliance, convenience for the patient).
Say the single IR doses are 10 mg and the ER 20 mg. It might well be that the originator’s IR is approved for up to 40 mg given a single doses.1
In the comparison AUC is primary. Whether the first/second peak of the ER has to match the Cmax-values of the IR administrations (and to which degree) is another story. I have seen assessing both but with expanded limits, non-superiority2 (to assess potential dose-dumping), only the global Cmax, and even just a descriptive analysis. Which one is the right approach depends on the drug, of course.

  1. Real example. Don’t ask me for the drug.
  2. Preferred in the EMA’s MR-GL (together with non-inferiority of Cτ = the bracketing approach). See an example in the vignette of PowerTOST.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz

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

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,179 posts in 4,414 threads, 1,474 registered users;
online 5 (0 registered, 5 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 05:19 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The idea is to try and give all the information to help others
to judge the value of your contribution;
not just the information that leads to judgment
in one particular direction or another.    Richard Feynman

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