highly variable drugs-Cmax [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-11-19 20:58 (150 d 18:58 ago) – Posting: # 22070
Views: 721

Hi Osama,

» Although the GCC GL is adopted from the EMA GL, but the upper cap of scaling is about only 39% and not 50%!!!!

noquote(sprintf("%.2f%%", 100*U2CVwR(U = 1/0.75)))
[1] 39.25%


I wouldn’t call that scaling. The GL calls for fixed limits of 75.00–133.33% (based on a “clinically not relevant Δ” of 25%) for any CVwR >30% (there is no upper cap and the widened limits are fixed).
That’s the approach mentioned in the EMA’s Q&A-document of July 2006:


BTW, with fixed limits there are no issues with inflation of the type I error* like in all reference-scaling methods (EMA, Health Canada, FDA). When discussing the EMA’s draft, sponsors complained that ABEL is more restrictive at CVwR 30–39.25% than the “old” approach…

» At the moment, I think you could have a good chance under the conditions that your BE study is demonstrated in a replicate design and that the high within-subject variability for Cmax not caused by outliers.

That’s interesting!

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,419 posts in 4,475 threads, 1,510 registered users;
online 18 (0 registered, 18 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 16:57 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