Scaling/Widening of AUC [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-03-16 13:55 (31 d 17:13 ago) – Posting: # 22271
Views: 393

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
21,419 posts in 4,475 threads, 1,509 registered users;
online 19 (0 registered, 19 guests [including 1 identified bots]).
Forum time: Saturday 08:09 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

I never did anything worth doing by accident,
nor did any of my inventions come by accident;
they came by work.    Thomas Alva Edison

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