switch-over design [Design Issues]

posted by shabana – 2007-02-13 06:33 (6656 d 01:50 ago) – Posting: # 513
Views: 9,357

(edited on 2007-02-13 11:18)

Dear HS
Let me see if I get this right. For successful planning of BE studies, both PK and PD have to be taken into account. Right, that's ok.
This is good. so washout will serve two purposes here - assure you that both PK and PD effects have worn off. So the IECs are not going to be happy only if you can show a reduction in "n", you also need to assure them that subjects will not be exposed to unnecessary risks, that their welfare is well taken care of, among other things. so when you say

❝ ❝ How will you explain drug toxicity then???

❝ Simple: the concentration is above the toxicity level…


a CONCENTRATION above toxicity level is responsible for the observed toxicity. you have to assure them that the concentration does not go above toxicity. that is the trouble you may anticipate from IECs.
Nor do I advocate "additional washouts", as you put it. I say "judicious", one that will keep everyone involved happy. As for "uncomplicated drugs", as mentioned you have to demonstrate and justify that the effects are as you expect.
Regards
Shabana

--
Edit: Full quote removed. [HS]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,669 registered users;
68 visitors (0 registered, 68 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:24 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

My doctor gave me six months to live,
but when I couldn’t pay the bill
he gave me six months more.    Walter Matthau

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