Scaling/Widening of AUC [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-03-16 14:55 (1123 d 01:27 ago) – Posting: # 22271
Views: 2,402

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 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,980 posts in 4,821 threads, 1,655 registered users;
42 visitors (0 registered, 42 guests [including 14 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:23 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Never, never, never use any software!
Never, never, never trust any computer!    Detlew Labes

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