Tricky… [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by wienui  – Germany, Oman, 2020-01-30 18:53 (360 d 18:53 ago) – Posting: # 21111
Views: 13,789

(edited by wienui on 2020-01-30 19:04)

Hello Helmut,

» For the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates) and South Africa you can use ABE for Cmax with fixed (!) limits of 75.00–133.33% if CVwR <30%.

I think there is a mistake here, you are right according to the fixed limit of 75-133% in the GCC Guidelines in the case of HVD (HVDP) which is absolutely not correct and cause a lot of problems in the evaluation of such drug formulation's types, BUT widen to this range is not in the case of ABE and not at all if CVwR <30% .

As according to GCC GL (citation down) a replicate design and prove of CVwR >30% ( not<) is required to wide only the Cmax.


"Those HVDP for which a wider difference in Cmax is considered clinically irrelevant based on a sound clinical justification can be assessed with a widened acceptance range. If this is the case, a wider acceptance range (i.e. 75-133%) for Cmax can be used. For the acceptance interval to be widened the bioequivalence study must be of a replicate design where it has been demonstrated that the within subject variability for Cmax of the reference compound in the study is >30%."
Best regards,

Cheers,
Osama

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,310 posts in 4,445 threads, 1,489 registered users;
online 4 (0 registered, 4 guests [including 1 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 13:47 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Science may set limits to knowledge,
but should not set limits to imagination.    Bertrand Russell

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