Tricky… [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by wienui  – Germany/Oman, 2020-01-30 19:53 (1097 d 10:47 ago) – Posting: # 21111
Views: 18,351

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:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,477 posts in 4,708 threads, 1,603 registered users;
15 visitors (0 registered, 15 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 06:41 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I think it is much more interesting to live with uncertainty
than to live with answers that might be wrong.    Richard Feynman

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