Mauricio Sampaio
★    

Brazil,
2017-07-19 18:55
(3258 d 12:44 ago)

Posting: # 17561
Views: 3,724
 

 Recommendations to bioequivalence study of Rivaroxaban: FDA vs EMA [Regulatives / Guidelines]

Dear, according recommendations from FDA: "Rivaroxaban demonstrated a steep exposure-response relationship for both efficacy and safety; therefore applicants should not use the reference-scaled average bioequivalence (BE) approach to widen the BE limits for rivaroxaban BE evaluation. Applicants should use the average BE approach with BE limits of 80-125%. The within-subject variability of test (T) and reference (R) products should be compared, and the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval for the test-to-reference ratio of the within-subject variability should be ≤ 2.5".

Guidance: UCM461150

On the other hand, EMA suggests "two single dose studies, since there is a different food effect resulting in different food recommendations. One study under fasting conditions with the 10 mg strength and one study under fed conditions with the 20 mg strength".

Scientific_guideline_WC500195126.

Is there right or wrong in this case? Or are there two different criterias to prove the same? :confused:
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
149 visitors (0 registered, 149 guests [including 17 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:39 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Science is simply common sense at its best that is,
rigidly accurate in observation, and
merciless to fallacy in logic.    Thomas Henry Huxley

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