Different PE in repeated study [Study As­sess­ment]

Hi Rahul,

» Dear Helmut,

    ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲   Not interested in opinions of other members? I’m not the only guru here.

» Thank you for allowing me to join forum.

No allowance needed. Welcome to the club.

» We conducted two BE study for one of the ANDA, in one study we got 90% CI (77-108) and another study we got (106-125.8) …

Since the CI in the second study was substantially narrower than in the first, I guess its sample size was larger. Details?

» … for same test and RLD lot.

That’s rather unusual. Since you are obviously aiming at ABE (80.00–125.00%) and the drug is not highly variable (correct?), such a behavior of the PE is strange (91.2% vs 115.5%).
I know only a few cases (e.g., dasatinib), where the reference is a lousy product (extreme batch-to-batch variability) and it’s very difficult to hit such a moving target in a repeated study. Seems not to be in your case. Confusing. Randomization, data entry, coding checked? Anything different? Clinical performance, bioanalytics?

» Will it possible to combine both study two justify product is bio-equivalent based on observe variability for regulatory submissions.

Extremely unlikely for the FDA, nothing stated in any guidance. An R-t-R almost guaranteed.
The EMA is pretty clear in this respect:

[…] a combined analysis of all studies can be provided in addition to the individual study analyses. It is not acceptable to pool together studies which fail to demonstrate bioequivalence in the absence of a study that does.

(my emphasis)

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz

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