|
The Outlaw Torn ★ Europe, 2011-11-02 13:49 (5346 d 17:37 ago) Posting: # 7584 Views: 4,490 |
|
|
Dear all, The guidelines say that single dose studies are the most sensitive at distinguishing formulation effects (section 4.1.1). However, we keep getting statements like this from authorities: A multiple dose study at the highest dose strength is considered to be most sensitive model for detecting differences. Can someone explain why that would be so? And are there papers that discuss this? Thanks. |
|
Helmut ★★★ ![]() Vienna, Austria, 2011-11-02 16:31 (5346 d 14:55 ago) @ The Outlaw Torn Posting: # 7585 Views: 3,781 |
|
|
Dear TOT! ❝ […] we keep getting statements like this from authorities: A multiple dose study at the highest dose strength is considered to be most sensitive model for detecting differences. Very interesting. In some particular cases valid (see below). ❝ Can someone explain why that would be so? And are there papers that discuss this? Some basic work was done by the FDA1,2 and recently by a Spanish group.3,4 Note one of the co-authors. ![]() From the last papers’ concluding remarks: Parent drug in single dose is usually the most sensitive analyte for demonstration of bioequivalence in case of drugs with linear kinetics and only hepatic pre-systemic metabolism. The only exception to this general rule is BCS Class III drugs with low intrinsic clearance, which are expected to be very infrequent and to show non-linear kinetics due to limited absorption caused by a limited operative absorption time or absorption window. In this exceptional case the parent drug in steady state seems to be the most sensitive analyte.3
— 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 |
|
The Outlaw Torn ★ Europe, 2011-11-03 13:26 (5345 d 18:00 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 7591 Views: 3,636 |
|
|
Looks like I've got some reading to do. Many thanks, Helmut. |
|
ElMaestro ★★★ Denmark, 2011-11-03 13:28 (5345 d 17:58 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 7592 Views: 3,629 |
|
|
Hi HS, ❝ Some basic work was done by the FDA1,2 and recently by a Spanish group.3,4 Note one of the co-authors. Ah, so we can't get approvals on basis of simulations but regulators can use simulations to define regulatory requirements ?! Best regards, EM. |
|
Helmut ★★★ ![]() Vienna, Austria, 2011-11-03 15:46 (5345 d 15:40 ago) @ ElMaestro Posting: # 7595 Views: 3,645 |
|
|
Dear ElMaestro! ❝ Ah, so we can't get approvals on basis of simulations but regulators can use simulations to define regulatory requirements Sure. All the fancy scaling stuff is based on simulations. Even worse: A lot is based on gut feeling (Δ 20%: Wilfred Westlake’s colleagues at Smith, Kline & French; EMA’s crippled scaling methods A/B), politiks (scaling; PE restriction within 80–1.25%: Les Benet), prejudice (nonparametrics), and… I bet a month’s salary that regulators never performed sumfink like this before they came up with their strange requirement of dropping a formulation in a high-order crossover. — 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 |


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