Sulfasalazine: Bioequivalence Study [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2011-06-25 15:18 (5067 d 11:01 ago) – Posting: # 7174
Views: 6,053

Dear Ramesh,

the usual question: for which country?

If you want to go to the US, ask the FDA’s review staff whether reference-scaling is acceptable. In conventional 2×2 cross-over studies we found sulfasalazine and 5-ASA to be highly variable (CVintra 40–50 %; both for AUC and Cmax). Other metabolites were nicer (sulfapyridine ≈13 %, N-acetyl-sulfapyridine ≈8 %, N-acetyl-5-ASA ≈23 %) – but the FDA is not asking for them. If you are thinking to opt for urine, forget it: sulfasalazine 60-70 %, sulfapyridine 15-25 %, N-acetyl-sulfapyridine 23-30 %, hydroxy-sulfapyridine 25-30 %, hydroxy-N-acetyl-sulfapyridine 20-25 %).

For the EMA you have to go with the parent. Convincing them that sulfasalazine is a pro-drug (I would say so) would not help because 5-ASA is highly variable as well. Scaling is acceptable for Cmax only…

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,670 registered users;
108 visitors (0 registered, 108 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 02:20 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

We should not speak so that it is possible
for the audience to understand us,
but so that it is impossible
for them to misunderstand us.    Quintilian

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