estimated AUC72 [NCA / SHAM]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2013-10-13 23:17 (3819 d 14:35 ago) – Posting: # 11659
Views: 9,602

Hi,

❝ In fact I would like to add a situation I have faced in couple of studies for pMDI formulation (with and without charcoal treatment), for Salmeterol I got AUC% extrapolation more than 20 % in about 35 % of the population and most of the subjects achieved either zero concentration much before the last concentration or had very slight concentration at last time point, actually a straight line was seen in the elimination phase because of which although samples were collected sufficient time period (up to 18 hrs post dose), AUC% extrapolation was greater than 20%. Following is a profile typically seen in most of the subjects but we got a query from regulator over it for validity of the as per guideline?


Let me make sure I deciphered your question correctly. 1) Are you talking about BE studies (T vs R)? 2) You said some subjects showed AUClast up to 8 hrs only for both T and R, while some showed AUClast up to a longer collection time? If so, I don't understand your concern. What query would the agency have? I can see the issue if the same subject shows AUC only up to 8 hrs for Test but AUC up to a longer collection time for Reference.

I recently ran a highly variable drug BE study. AUCs were a mess with subjects having
  1. undetectable concentration after 4 hr sampling
  2. undetectable concentrations after 12 hr sampling
  3. all concentrations above LLQ at end of collection time of 48 hrs.
John

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
106 visitors (0 registered, 106 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:53 CET (Europe/Vienna)

With four parameters I can fit an elephant,
and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.    John von Neumann

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