Scaling/Widening of AUC [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-03-16 13:55 (138 d 17:59 ago) – Posting: # 22271
Views: 928

Hi dshah,

» I am having few doubts for harmonization.

Welcome to the club!

» Why regulatory bodies does have different requirement for scaling acceptance …

IMHO, not related to science at all but to politics.
I attended all conferences of the ‘Global Bioequivalence Harmonization Initiative’ and was a member of the panel of the session ‘Scaling Procedure and Adaptive Design(s) in BE Assessment of Highly Variable Drugs’ (2nd GBHI, Rockville, September 2016). Justifications? Not really. I guess (‼):
» Or for NTI- limit of 90.00-111.11 is more relevant than RSABE approach and does justify the safety and efficacy?

Good question, next question.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,596 posts in 4,516 threads, 1,532 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 08:54 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded
if you tied them the usual way.
This happens to us all the time with computers,
and nobody thinks of complaining.    Jef Raskin

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