Underrepresentation of female subjects in BE study to register Generic [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2020-03-15 09:27 (400 d 01:48 ago) – Posting: # 21273
Views: 3,344

Hi ping,

» It's not a random flutter. Females actually fall back on bioequivalncy. Cmax at 75% and range was lower too. Pioneer product behaved similar way. So it's not random. You are right. The females also has higher variance.

(...)

» I didn't understand your last statement. Can you kindly clarify?

This could be a case of BE being present in males and not in females. Would you really want to put such a product on the market, if you think the conclusion from males can be extrapolated in such a way that regulators grant approval??
However, those companies that did try to investigate if BE applies in one population but not in another all failed - there are occasional rumours out there but the proof is generally rather absent. I.e. if a product is BE in one gender and not in another, or if a product is BE in a European population but not in an African population etc. Innovators have spent a lot of $$ on investigating it, and no solid proof was delivered so far.
I am thus a little doubtful as to whether you are really having a product with a true gender difference in terms of the BE conclusion.

"More data is needed."

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,419 posts in 4,475 threads, 1,510 registered users;
online 9 (0 registered, 9 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 12:15 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

There is one certainty in drug development
and statistics that one can depend on:
the data are always late.    Scott Patterson and Byron Jones

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