Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum 14:19 CET

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

M.tareq
Junior

2017-10-12 07:53

Posting: # 17890
Views: 2,285
 

 Clinical significance of Tmax [Regulatives / Guidelines]

Dear all ,

I have a question about Tmax from clinical perspective.

According to EMA guidance:
"A statistical evaluation of tmax is not required. However, if rapid release is claimed to be clinically relevant and of importance for onset of action or is related to adverse events, there should be no apparent difference in median tmax and its variability between test and reference product."

If a fast disintegrating tab has a tmax earlier than the conventional release, does it prove that it has an earlier onset of action?

Thanks in advance and Best regards
Helmut
Hero
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2017-10-12 13:22

@ M.tareq
Posting: # 17891
Views: 1,970
 

 Clinical significance of Tmax

Hi M.tareq,

» "A statistical evaluation of tmax is not required …

Unfortunately the EMA is so allergic to a nonparametric test that it was removed from the GL.

» … if rapid release is claimed to be clinically relevant and of importance for onset of action or is related to adverse events, …

We had to accept that BE is seen a “quality measure”. Why the heck does clinical relevance come back here?

» … there should be no apparent difference in median tmax and its variability between test and reference product."

Oh dear! Apparent? Variability of the median?

» If a fast disintegrating tab has a tmax earlier than the conventional release, does it prove that it has an earlier onset of action?

Not the slightest idea. First of all, tmax is a very poor predictor of differences in the rate of absorption.
Example: One compartment model; FT=FR=1, kel 0.1733 h–1 (t½ 4 h), kabs,R 1.3863 h–1 (t½ 30 min), kabs,T 2.0794 h–1 (t½ 20 min), sigmoidal effect model identical for T and R; Emax 125, EC50 50, γ 0.25.

  t       C (R)   C (T)        E (R)   E (T)
 0.0000    0.00    0.00         0.00    0.00
 0.0833    9.48   14.48        49.69   52.89
 0.1667   17.78   26.44        54.47   57.53
 0.2500   25.05   36.30        57.11   60.00
 0.3333   31.39   44.39        58.87   61.57
 0.5000   41.70   56.35        61.08   63.43
 0.7500   52.46   66.79        62.87   64.76
 1.0000   59.09   71.59        63.80   65.30
 1.2500   62.85   73.09        64.29   65.46
 1.5000   64.61   72.69        64.50   65.42
 2.0000   64.46   69.15        64.48   65.03
 2.7500   59.88   61.76        63.91   64.15
 4.0000   49.61   49.98        62.44   62.50
 6.0000   35.33   35.35        59.79   59.79
 8.0000   25.00   25.00        57.10   57.10
12.0000   12.50   12.50        51.78   51.78
16.0000    6.25    6.25        46.61   46.61
24.0000    1.56    1.56        37.00   37.00
tmax       1.50    1.25  tmax   1.50    1.25
 Δ                –0.25   Δ            –0.25
Cmax      64.61   73.09  Emax  64.50   65.46
 T/R             113.13%  T/R          101.49%
λz       0.1733  0.1733  λz   0.0281   0.0281
AUCt     504.99  529.50  AUECt 1236.8  1240.5
AUC∞     514.01  538.52  AUEC∞ 2552.3  2556.0
 T/R             104.77%  T/R          100.15%


[image]


Although T has a 50% (!) faster absorption than R, tmax of T is only 15 min earlier than the one of R (reflected both in concentrations and effects). The T/R-ratio of Cmax is 113% but the maximum effect increases by only 1.5%! Is that relevant?
This is a very simple PK/PD-link model. With others (e.g., incorporating a delay in onset) the observed difference in PK may disappear completely in PD. If we have no data about the PK/PD-relationship we are left out in the dark. I’m aware of only a few studies (rapid onset for multiphasic products of zolpidem and methlyphenidate).

Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes
M.tareq
Junior

2017-10-22 00:36

@ Helmut
Posting: # 17902
Views: 1,662
 

 Clinical significance of Tmax

Thanks alot Helmut for your reply and help.
kumarnaidu
Regular

Mumbai, India,
2018-11-01 14:01

@ Helmut
Posting: # 19516
Views: 319
 

 Clinical significance of Tmax

Dear All,


“According to the CHMP Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence (CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98 Rev. 1/Corr**) “if rapid release is claimed to be clinically relevant and of importance for onset of action or is related to adverse events, there should be no apparent difference in median Tmax and its variability between test and reference product . For example if the therapeutic indication of the product is for short-term symptomatic treatment of mild and moderate pain. Then, as such the rate of release is clinically relevant for this immediate release product. So for such product in BE study if the median Tmax is found to be lower for the test product (1.25 hours) than for the reference product (2.00 hours) although overall ranges were similar for Tmax but median is not comparable. So with a difference of 45 minutes in median Tmax, the absorption rates of Test product and Reference are not considered comparable. Considering T/R ratios is around 100 and the statistical comparison cannot be used as an argument because the study was not necessarily powered to detect a difference in Tmax. what would be the possible reasons for this difference and how we should justify why the difference is not clinically relevant?

Thanks in advance


Regards,
Kumar

Kumar Naidu
Activity
 Thread view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
18,883 posts in 4,027 threads, 1,271 registered users;
online 32 (0 registered, 32 guests [including 32 identified bots]).

Those who make no mistakes are making the biggest mistakes of all –
they are attempting nothing new.    Anthony de Mello

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5 RSS Feed