Calculation of AUC0-72 [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2009-01-26 17:20  – Posting: # 3126
Views: 19,125

Dear D. Labes,

» I am with you if the values in the last part of the concentration time course are <LOQ. But I think it's different with missing values (vial broken or so) especially in case of long half life drugs.

If a value is missing – or even came up as <LOQ in repeated analyses – and is included within values which are clearly (!) above LOQ I routinely substitute such a value by a (log)interpolated estimate. I have such a procedure since decades (oh, I’m getting old) in my protocols, and never got any problems.

» Because time points are spread occasionally with 24h in the last part, there may be a considerable portion of AUC missing.

This wouldn’t bother me as long as Clast ≥2–4 times tmax.

» » I wouldn’t start trying to get an estimate of C72.
»
» Is this sentence then furthermore your opinion?

Yes.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,777 posts in 4,351 threads, 1,444 registered users;
online 17 (0 registered, 17 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:11 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

All we know about the world teaches us that the effects of A and B
are always different—in some decimal place—for any A and B.
Thus asking “are the effects different?” is foolish.    John W. Tukey

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