no BE between early phase and Phase 3 formulations [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by fno Homepage – Belgium, 2020-01-22 18:11 (1111 d 11:03 ago) – Posting: # 21080
Views: 2,335

Thanks Helmut for your feed-back!

❝ Without digging into guidelines: No. What we have in Phase I/II is sometimes not what I would call a ‘formulation’ in the biopharmaceutical sense at all. Anything goes: Manually filled capsules, lab-scale tablet-presses, etc.


Indeed.

❝ Doesn’t matter because we are interested in PK (I) and safety (II).


OK but then how to justify in the dossier the extrapolation of some early phase outcomes, e.g. a food effect or an efficacy and/or safety exposure signal... should these key findings be evaluated/demonstrated again with the final formulation?

❝ Once you move to phase III you are bound to cGMP (though still in pilot-scale). Only when you move from III to the to be marketed formulation, the applicable SUPAC guidance (IR, MR, SS) cut in and very likely you need a BE study.


Yep.

Thank you!

Kind regards,
Fabrice

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,481 posts in 4,710 threads, 1,603 registered users;
18 visitors (1 registered, 17 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 05:15 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The difference between a surrogate and a true endpoint
is like the difference between a cheque and cash.
You can get the cheque earlier but then,
of course, it might bounce.    Stephen Senn

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