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

posted by ElMaestro  – Belgium?, 2020-03-15 09:27 2001:2012:306:2500:556:2450:5db:5bb5 – Posting: # 21273
Views: 1,596

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."

This week's list of things I absolutely detest: Corona virus, the which function in R, WIA-WIA interfaces for scanning under Windows 10, the Bee Gees, the smell of my fridge.

Best regards,
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,456 posts in 4,296 threads, 1,413 registered users;
online 13 (0 registered, 13 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 21:22 CEST

No one wants to learn from mistakes, but we cannot learn enough
from successes to go beyond the state of the art.    Henry Petroski

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