relax [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-01-23 11:59 (273 d 00:43 ago) – Posting: # 21082
Views: 1,387

Hi Fabrice,

» » 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?

An example: The NDA of idelalisib. A lot of Phase I/II studies (women/men, Japanese/Caucasian, food effect, DDIs, renal/hepatic impairment) were performed in 6 (six!) to 12 subjects with early formulations.
There was also a study comparing formulations (n = 15, extremely underpowered for the x̃ CV of 29% in earlier studies). Some comparisons failed (e.g., 90% CI of Cmax 106–153%). Funny:

2.5.2.2 What are the safety or efficacy issues, if any, for BE studies that fail to meet the 90% CI using equivalence limits of 80–125%?
None. The exposure for the different drug products is similar.

Quoting nobody: It’s originator, stupid!

Since idelalisib is in BCS II (where dissolution cannot predict in vivo performance), the FDA lamented about later manufacturing changes but accepted the package at the end of the day.

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
21,176 posts in 4,413 threads, 1,475 registered users;
online 13 (0 registered, 13 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: Thursday 13:43 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right,
but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong.    Isaac Asimov

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