Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum • Great discussion

Great discussion [Design Issues]

posted by ElMaestro – Denmark, 2020-01-02 17:31 (1837 d 07:34 ago) – Posting: # 21051
Views: 10,506

Hi all,

interesting discussions here.

❝ Question: Where should such a system be located? At the EMA?

Is a crossparticipation effort truly necessary across EU?

Some pros and cons as I see the issue and I am not talking legal affairs here:

Pros:

If we require /enforce/inspect/question anything about it in region A (like India), then we should do so also in region B (like EU).
EU would be forerunners. Someone in a penguin suit would have an opportunity to go on TV and brag about initiaties and patient concerns and sip champagne out of a tall glass, display friendly handshakes, canapes, live webinars with agency employees who read from a script and that kinda stuff. The opportunity to get good press is something that means a lot to the heads of agencies.

Cons:

Is there a need? ICF is always in layman's national language. I did not hear much of crossparticipators across borders in EU, as far as I recall. It cannot be compared so well to India, where ICF's are usually in at least 3 languages (Hindi, English, and (the most common) state language(s)).
But on the other hand, being proactive -if anyone wants to be so?- means you address an issue before the need arises. What if it turns out in 5 years there are current crossparticipators gaming the systems in Austria/Germany, or the Francolophystic countries? Do you wish to wait until you learn about them or do you want to do something to prevent it before it happens? After all, CAPA's are part of general GCP which regulators seem to like, right?
Expand a little further on Pros pt 1. and you will need to discuss China. A diplomatic crisis waiting to happen.

By the way: I do not know of any other indicator -should I call it biomarker??- of crossparticipation than HB (or hematocrit, RBC count etc). Do you know of any?
Of course DNA traces present in plasma are direct markers of subject identity posing huge technical and practical difficulties and that in itself is a discussion for another thread.
Can you guys think of any other biomarker/indicator unrelated to blood loss or the regenerative process?

—
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

Normal Reference Range Vs Pre-defined site normal values cakhatri 2019-12-17 11:35 [Design Issues]
- Normal Reference Range Vs Pre-defined site normal values ElMaestro 2019-12-17 23:21
- Hb level Ohlbe 2019-12-29 17:04
  - OT Helmut 2019-12-29 18:49
  - Hb level nobody 2019-12-31 10:47
  - Hb level ElMaestro 2019-12-31 15:19
    - Hb level nobody 2019-12-31 15:46
      - Hb level ElMaestro 2019-12-31 17:21
        
        Hb level nobody 2019-12-31 17:26
        Participation databases Helmut 2019-12-31 18:01
        
        Participation databases ElMaestro 2019-12-31 20:21
        
        Participation databases Helmut 2020-01-01 10:23
        
        Participation databases ElMaestro 2020-01-01 12:23
        
        Participation databases nobody 2020-01-02 10:35
        Participation databases Ohlbe 2020-01-02 12:18
        
        National databases‽ Helmut 2020-01-02 13:06
        
        Great discussionElMaestro 2020-01-02 16:31
        
        Great discussion Ohlbe 2020-01-02 16:57
        
        Great discussion ElMaestro 2020-01-02 18:19
        
        WTF ? Helmut 2020-01-02 18:42
        
        Great discussion Helmut 2020-01-02 17:14
        
        National databases‽ Ohlbe 2020-01-02 16:36