Critical review of EU BE guideline (Rev.1) [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2008-08-25 11:49 (6141 d 12:45 ago) – Posting: # 2245
Views: 24,417

Dear all!

I have another one:

4.1.1 Study design, Alternative designs, page 5/6 (lines 163-169)
'A multiple dose study as an alternative to single dose may also be acceptable if problems of sensitivity of the analytical method precludes sufficiently precise plasma concentration measurements after single dose administration. As Cmax at steady state may be less sensitive to differences in the absorption rate than Cmax after single dose, bioequivalence should, if possible, be determined for Cmax after single dose administration (i.e. after the first dose [...]).

The last sentence excludes one of the possibilities for dealing with HVD's, namly a steady state study to reduce variability in Cmax in comparision to the single dose variability (if this is possible for the formulation under consideration).

It is required by this sentence that the whole concentration time course of the first dose has to be followed up by a sufficient sampling schedule.
This is in practice essentially the request of doing two studies: single dose and multiple dose, although combined.

It remains the secret of the authors of this DRAFT why the first dose Cmax should be a suitable metric or should be better in detecting differences in case of "... problems of sensitivity of the analytical method precludes sufficiently precise plasma concentration measurements after single dose administration ..."

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,672 registered users;
68 visitors (0 registered, 68 guests [including 55 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:34 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Truth and clarity are complementary.    Niels Bohr

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