Fast & fed in one study (alternative) [Design Issues]

posted by Shuanghe  – Spain, 2020-03-04 17:13 (1545 d 02:11 ago) – Posting: # 21203
Views: 3,169

Dear Helmut

❝ If T shows a substantially lower food effect than R that’s good for the patients. However, if you want to state that in the label/SmPC (“can be taken with or without food”) you have to switch from a generic to a hybrid application. The EMA welcomes that. Whether the additional clinical studies are worth the efforts is another story.


What happens if T is BE to R under fasting and fed but T has much more food effect than R? Will "nice-to-know" become "but-now-I-know-so-you-are-fucked"? What's your experience from regulation perspective?

All the best,
Shuanghe

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,035 posts in 4,835 threads, 1,645 registered users;
64 visitors (0 registered, 64 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:25 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

That which is static and repetitive is boring.
That which is dynamic and random is confusing.
In between lies art.    John Locke

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