|
Ghannam86 ☆ Jordan, 2014-06-21 03:05 (4388 d 05:05 ago) Posting: # 13109 Views: 6,570 |
|
|
Dear All, I would like to know if there is any regulations in FDA regarding including smoking subjects in bioequivalence studies. I would like to know if there are any points to consider in the protocol. Regards, |
|
Helmut ★★★ ![]() Vienna, Austria, 2014-06-21 14:56 (4387 d 17:14 ago) @ Ghannam86 Posting: # 13114 Views: 5,930 |
|
|
Hi Ghannam, ❝ I would like to know if there is any regulations in FDA regarding including smoking subjects in bioequivalence studies. Were you too lazy to read FDA’s guidances and do you want us to explore them for you instead? Nothing about the smoking status is stated in the general guidances:
Are 18.1% a relevant part of the general population? I would say so.1 Or the other way ’round: Are the 81.9% non-smokers representative of the general population? Given that, I don’t see a rationale to exclude smokers from BE-studies in a crossover design performed for the FDA (whereas the EMA prefers non-smokers – without giving a justification). AFAIK, in none of FDA’s product-specific guidances anything is mentioned about smoking (I checked the usual suspects; see below). An excerpt from Imre Klebovich’s last month’s presentation2 in Budapest: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are potent inducers of the hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms 1A1, 1A2, and possibly 2E1. Of these, 1A2 is the most important. Some drugs affected by induction of CYP1A2 (i.e., increased metabolism): Clozapine, fluvoxamine, olanzapine, tacrine, theophylline, coumarins (including warfarin). Examples: ❝ I would like to know if there are any points to consider in the protocol. If the drug is neither metabolized by one of the CYPs mentioned above nor a substrate of OCT2, smoking status is simply irrelevant in BE. Even for affected drugs in crossover studies any PK-interaction would mean out (within-subject comparison). However, the between-subject variability would be substantially larger than in a BE-study performed in non-smokers. Hence, the bioanalytical method must be capable dealing with a wider range of concentrations. For obvious reasons parallel studies of affected drugs should be performed in non-smokers only. If you opt for a study in non-smokers, perform a cotinine-test. It is insufficient to rely on subjects’ statements.3 Nicotine withdrawal induces stress, which may play havoc on liver blood-flow. Not a good idea.
— 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 |
|
Ghannam86 ☆ Jordan, 2014-06-22 02:04 (4387 d 06:06 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 13115 Views: 5,482 |
|
|
Dear Hemlet, thanks a lot for the comprehensive answer. I really appreciate that. Actually I have read the guidance documents but I thought that I may use the experience of the people in the forum. There I no much data regarding the metabolic pathway for the molecule. I will try to find more articles related to that. I would like to know what is your opinion in case of having a failed bioequivalence study (Passed Cmax and failed AUC). What are the reasons behind that. I have calculated the absorption rate constant for the two treatments (test and reference) and they were the same. API is BCS class IV. Reference scaled was the applied design, Another thing to clarify, is it possible to widen the acceptance criteria limit for AUC? I mean to be larger than 80-125 %. Regards, |
|
Helmut ★★★ ![]() Vienna, Austria, 2014-06-22 02:22 (4387 d 05:48 ago) @ Ghannam86 Posting: # 13116 Views: 5,585 |
|
|
Hi Ghannam, ❝ Dear Hemlet, ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ Helmut, if you don’t mind. ❝ […] failed bioequivalence study (Passed Cmax and failed AUC). What are the reasons behind that. No idea. Bad luck (aka producer’s risk)? Can you give us some data? ❝ Reference scaled was the applied design, That’s not a design, but a method to assess BE. Was it a partially (TRR|RTR|RRT) or a fully replicated design (TRTR|RTRT or TRT|RTR)? Expected CVs for AUC and Cmax and their assumed T/R-ratios? Planned power? Expected drop-out rate? Sample size? Completed subjects? ![]() ❝ […] is it possible to widen the acceptance criteria limit for AUC? I mean to be larger than 80-125 %. Given what you wrote in your OP I assume you are talking about FDA’s rules. For the FDA you don’t expand the acceptance range (like in EMA’s ABEL), but have to apply “Reference-Scaled Average Bioequivalence” (RSABE). To pass BE, both conditions have to be fulfilled:
— 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 |

March 2003![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png)
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png)

