Early exposure, Canadian approach: GMR only! [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2009-02-09 09:50 (5916 d 23:06 ago) – Posting: # 3211
Views: 22,054

Dear Helmut,

Not to see the wood for the trees!


❝ [...] I overlooked that nobody asks for a confidence interval :-D .So only the mean should lie within 0.8-1.25.


Many thanks for clarifying this point. Regarding the wood and the trees I only could say: Me too. Maybe we are so fixed to the confidence interval approach that we see it lurking behind each corner if bioequivalence limits are given.

BTW: If I read the Notice to Industry for rapid onset drugs, I am not aware what this notice really tells me.
After describing the Cmax and AUCReftmax criteria it is stated:
"Given the current increased precision of analytical methodologies and better methodologies to collect more frequent blood samples, it has been decided that bioequivalence requirements for these drug products need no longer be as stringent as recommended in Report C." ???

What does this mean? Anybody an idea?

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,672 registered users;
27 visitors (0 registered, 27 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:57 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The difference between a surrogate and a true endpoint
is like the difference between a cheque and cash.
You can get the cheque earlier but then,
of course, it might bounce.    Stephen Senn

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