Evaluation of Reference variability [Design Issues]

posted by Marcel – 2010-03-16 14:10 (5576 d 11:10 ago) – Posting: # 4920
Views: 3,807
(edited on 2010-03-16 14:54)

❝ Same opinions were expressed at the EUFEPS meeting last January (see this thread), where almost the entire PK group of EMEAas present. The group univocally expressed their point of view that a two period replicate design (reference only) is not acceptable.


Hello all. My apologies for dragging this replicate skeleton out of the closet when it seemed like it was comfortably resting.

Was there any mention at this meeting as to whether the results of a replicate design study (finding of intra-subject variablility exceeding 30%) with a lower strength can be used to justify widen acceptance limits for a higher strength of the same drug to undergo a standard BE study?

If this is not allowed, can someone explain why not?

Thank you in advance.

Edit: Full quote removed. Please delete anything from the text of the original poster which is not necessary in understanding your answer; see also this post! [Jaime]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,671 registered users;
49 visitors (0 registered, 49 guests [including 14 identified bots]).
Forum time: 02:20 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical researches can be divided into two sorts:
those who think that meta is better and those
who believe that pooling is fooling.    Stephen Senn

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