Scaling/Widening of AUC [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-03-16 13:55 (518 d 01:10 ago) – Posting: # 22271
Views: 1,731

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 🖖 [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
22,302 posts in 4,667 threads, 1,586 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Tuesday 16:06 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

In matters of style, swim with the current;
in matters of principle, stand like a rock.    Thomas Jefferson

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