Scaling/Widening of AUC [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-03-16 13:55 (314 d 23:03 ago) – Posting: # 22271
Views: 1,398

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

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

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,854 posts in 4,573 threads, 1,554 registered users;
online 20 (1 registered, 19 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: Tuesday 12:58 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I love deadlines.
I love the whooshing sound they make
as they go by.    Douglas Adams

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