Between study variability common for HVDs [Regulatives / Guidelines]
Dear ElMaestro, Dan and all!
Not necessarily. Dan stated in his post that the drug is highly variable. It’s a common property of HVDs that not only the variance is high, but also the location of the T/R-ratio may vary across studies. If would suggest to have a look at papers by the “Two Lászlós” for further explanations. Remember that the restriction of the point estimate of [0.8-1.25] was introduced by the FDA after long discussions for political reasons [sic!]* – and copypasted by the EMA. Such a restriction is questionable and not statistically justified. The pivotal studies demonstrated BE, but I would build an argument based on the natural property of the underlying distribution.
The concept of batch-to-batch in vivo BE is only of historical interest. It was discussed at the BioInternational 1994 in Munich and was dropped. Same participants even asked the heretic question whether a product would be still bioequivalent to itself at the end of the shelf-life (don’t ask me how we would store the reference batch for the final BE study: in liquid N2?).
BTW, I agree with D. Labes’ observations about ref. 1, which was employed in studies 1 & 3.
❝ […] did you receive a deficiency question from module 3 regarding the product's release specifications? After all, this is where the inter-batch variability comes into the picture.
Not necessarily. Dan stated in his post that the drug is highly variable. It’s a common property of HVDs that not only the variance is high, but also the location of the T/R-ratio may vary across studies. If would suggest to have a look at papers by the “Two Lászlós” for further explanations. Remember that the restriction of the point estimate of [0.8-1.25] was introduced by the FDA after long discussions for political reasons [sic!]* – and copypasted by the EMA. Such a restriction is questionable and not statistically justified. The pivotal studies demonstrated BE, but I would build an argument based on the natural property of the underlying distribution.
The concept of batch-to-batch in vivo BE is only of historical interest. It was discussed at the BioInternational 1994 in Munich and was dropped. Same participants even asked the heretic question whether a product would be still bioequivalent to itself at the end of the shelf-life (don’t ask me how we would store the reference batch for the final BE study: in liquid N2?).
BTW, I agree with D. Labes’ observations about ref. 1, which was employed in studies 1 & 3.
- To quote Leslie Benet’s presentation (FDA/CDER, Pharmaceutical Science Advisory Committee (ACPS) Meeting, October 06, 2006) on the point estimate restriction:
- There is no scientific basis or rationale for the point
estimate recommendations
- There is no belief that addition of the point estimate
criteria will improve the safety of approved generic
drugs
- The point estimate recommendations are only
“political” to give greater assurance to clinicians and
patients who are not familiar (don’t understand) the
statistics of highly variable drugs
—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- inter-batch variability? Dr_Dan 2010-08-04 10:29 [Regulatives / Guidelines]
- inter-batch variability? Pavidus 2010-08-04 11:57
- inter-batch variability? d_labes 2010-08-04 13:58
- inter-batch variability? ElMaestro 2010-08-04 17:09
- Between study variability common for HVDsHelmut 2010-08-04 19:45
- Between study variability common for HVDs ElMaestro 2010-08-04 21:01
- Representative batches? Helmut 2010-08-04 23:42
- Representative batches? ElMaestro 2010-08-05 08:40
- Representative batches? Helmut 2010-08-05 12:30
- Representative batches? Dr_Dan 2010-08-05 08:58
- Representative batches? Helmut 2010-08-05 12:45
- Confidence intervals vs. point estimators Dr_Dan 2010-08-06 09:55
- Confidence intervals vs. point estimators ElMaestro 2010-08-06 12:34
- Confidence intervals vs. point estimates Helmut 2010-08-06 13:20
- Confidence intervals vs. point estimators Dr_Dan 2010-08-06 14:44
- Confidence intervals vs. point estimators ElMaestro 2010-08-06 15:01
- meta analysis? martin 2010-08-06 17:25
- meta analysis? ElMaestro 2010-08-06 17:57
- meta analysis? Helmut 2010-08-06 18:31
- meta analysis? Ohlbe 2010-08-06 23:21
- No chance against RMS? Dr_Dan 2010-08-10 12:27
- No chance against RMS? ElMaestro 2010-08-10 16:26
- No chance against RMS? Dr_Dan 2010-08-10 12:27
- meta analysis? ElMaestro 2010-08-06 17:57
- meta analysis? martin 2010-08-06 17:25
- Confidence intervals vs. point estimators ElMaestro 2010-08-06 15:01
- Confidence intervals vs. point estimators ElMaestro 2010-08-06 12:34
- Confidence intervals vs. point estimators Dr_Dan 2010-08-06 09:55
- Representative batches? Helmut 2010-08-05 12:45
- Representative batches? ElMaestro 2010-08-05 08:40
- Representative batches? Helmut 2010-08-04 23:42
- Between study variability common for HVDs ElMaestro 2010-08-04 21:01
- Batch-to-Batch Pharmacokinetic Variability kumarnaidu 2016-07-20 07:16
- tlast (Common) Helmut 2016-07-20 10:48
- tlast (Common) nobody 2019-02-21 15:20
- tlast (Common) ElMaestro 2019-02-21 16:32
- tlast (Common) nobody 2019-02-21 17:02
- tlast (Common) ElMaestro 2019-02-21 18:02
- tlast (Common) nobody 2019-02-21 18:17
- tlast (Common) ElMaestro 2019-02-21 18:02
- tlast (Common) nobody 2019-02-21 17:02
- tlast (Common) ElMaestro 2019-02-21 16:32
- tlast (Common) nobody 2019-02-21 15:20
- tlast (Common) Helmut 2016-07-20 10:48
- Between study variability common for HVDsHelmut 2010-08-04 19:45