Only fed study [Design Issues]

posted by Jaime_R – Barcelona, 2005-10-04 22:42 (6777 d 04:23 ago) – Posting: # 39
Views: 14,792

Hi Helmut!

The reasoning behind is that although you write something in the SPC, there is no guarantee, that patients act accordingly, i.e. swallow your drug together with food. Maybe they 'know' that any drug acts 'faster'/'better' if adminstered on an empty stomach, or they don't even read the SPC.

❝ Anyhow, if the food effect documented in the reference's SmPC is

❝ safety-related (i.e., AEs due to GI-disturbances), you may start an

❝ argument.


Yes, but: see above ;-)

❝ Remark: in such a case European Guidelines call only for a fed

❝ study.


Again yes, but: I've heard of an application where the Dutch regulators wanted to see a fasting study - after the submitted fed study (which showed BE).
Regulators have all post approval data of the inovator's product on file; maybe that's the reason.

Regards, Jaime

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,993 posts in 4,828 threads, 1,656 registered users;
105 visitors (0 registered, 105 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: 03:05 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Never never never never use Excel.
Not even for calculation of arithmetic means.    Martin Wolfsegger

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