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

posted by ElMaestro  – Belgium?, 2020-03-15 09:27  – Posting: # 21273
Views: 2,380

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."

I could be wrong, but...

Best regards,
ElMaestro

"Pass or fail" (D. Potvin et al., 2008)

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,646 posts in 4,328 threads, 1,436 registered users;
online 23 (1 registered, 22 guests [including 17 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:47 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

A little Learning is a dang’rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.    Alexander Pope

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