Mahesh M
★    

India,
2015-12-29 12:21
(3013 d 03:57 ago)

Posting: # 15769
Views: 10,246
 

 truncated design [Regulatives / Guidelines]

Dear All,

For truncated design (AUC truncated to 72 hours) is it required to take additional samples 72.00 hrs onwards to identified intra subject variability of AUC0-∞ or regulatory agency accept PK data up to 72.00 hrs.?

Regards
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2015-12-29 14:12
(3013 d 02:05 ago)

@ Mahesh M
Posting: # 15772
Views: 9,038
 

 FDA: AUC0–72

Hi Mahesh,

❝ For truncated design (AUC truncated to 72 hours) is it required to take additional samples 72.00 hrs onwards to identified intra subject variability of AUC0-∞ or regulatory agency accept PK data up to 72.00 hrs.?


Are the terms “truncated design” / “truncated study” common in India? Doesn’t make sense to me. Since you posted in the Regulatives / Guideline category I guess you are referring to the FDA?

You can use Cmax and a suitably truncated AUC to characterize peak and total drug exposure, respectively. For drugs that demonstrate low intrasubject variability in distribution and clearance, you can use an AUC truncated at 72 hours (AUC0-72 hr) in place of AUC0–t or AUC0–inf. For drugs demonstrating high intra­subject variability in distribution and clearance, AUC truncation should not be used.


It is beyond me how one should assess that. And, not or
  • Distribution
    For a drug described by a two-compartment model by a partial AUC from 2×tmax to the inflection point of the lin/log-plot?
  • Elimination
    AUCt–∞? t½? In the latter case, which distribution does it follow? Lognormal? Doubt it. Use a nonparametric test of untransformed data? Duno.
The FDA received a few comments related to truncation:
  1. Inflamax Research: What is the justification for this? El-Tahtawy et al. show in their Journal of BE & BA article (El-Tahtawy A, Harrison F, Zirkelbach JF, Jackson AJ (2011) Bioequivalence of Long Half-Life Drugs – Informative Sampling Determination – Parallel Designed Studies. J Bioequiv Availab 3: 056-061) that for highly variable drugs, truncation reduces the probability of falsely rejecting bioequivalence. Truncation does not increase the probability of obtaining false bioequivalence. Rather, truncated AUC shows lower RMSE% compared to AUCinf, for example.
  2. Sanofi suggested: For drugs that demonstrate low intra­subject (< X%) variability in distribution and clearance, you can use AUC truncated at 72 hours. For drugs demonstrating high intra­subject variability (≥ Y%) in distribution and clearance, AUC truncation should not be used.
  3. Sandoz: Please remove the reference to intra-subject variability in distribution and clearance for use of AUC truncated. Use of an AUC truncated to 72 hours should be allowed for all long half-life drugs.
  4. Manipal AcuNova: In case of truncated study when AUC is truncated at 72.00 hours and when there is a missing sample at 72.00 hours for one of the subject, then the handling of such data for AUC0–t evaluation is not mentioned in this guideline.
  5. Helmut Schütz: Kharidia et al. (Pharm Res 16(1):1999, 130–4) showed for amiodarone that truncation is applicable indeed. Furthermore, the guidance does not give a distinction between highly variable drugs (CVw ≥30% if administered as a solution in a replicate design) and highly variable drug products (CVw ≥30% if administered in a replicate design). In the light of global harmonization reconsider this section (EMA accepts truncated AUCs for all IR products independent from variability).
#2 is strange. Where would one get the X and Y from? Good point in #4. We had many discussions in the forum about it…

[image]IMHO, to “demonstrate” low variability in a particular study is a half-baked idea. You would have to sample for a long time (3–5 × t½). Hence, all the benefit (shorter hospitalization, missing samples in an ambulatory setting) would go with the wind. Let’s assume that you were able to show low variability, i.e., you have the AUC0–t and AUC0–∞ data and base BE on AUC0–72. I bet the FDA will ask for BE of the conventional PK metrics as well.
Ways out? Literature data? Don’t fall into the trap of comparing the CVw of AUC0–∞ with the one of AUC0–t. We would need the one of t½ or of the extrapolated part. I have never ever seen these values.

Interested to learn how our experienced US-members deal with this stuff. John, Nathan, Linda, Angus, Louis?


PS: The EMA’s GL does not contain such a bizarre restriction for IR-products. Truncation is not acceptable for all MR-products. IMHO, makes sense for controlled release. Not accepting truncation for delayed release is debatable…

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

India,
2015-12-29 14:51
(3013 d 01:26 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 15774
Views: 8,600
 

 FDA: AUC0–72

Dear Helmut,

Thank you so much for your explanation.

❝ #2 is strange. Where would one get the X and Y from?


Can we use our pilot study data (CV % for partial AUC from pilot study) to support truncated design in pivotal study.

Regards
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2015-12-29 16:43
(3012 d 23:35 ago)

@ Mahesh M
Posting: # 15775
Views: 8,633
 

 FDA: crystal ball

Hi Mahesh,

❝ ❝ #2 is strange. Where would one get the X and Y from?


❝ Can we use our pilot study data (CV % for partial AUC from pilot study) to support truncated design in pivotal study.


Which partial AUC do you have in mind? Especially demonstrating low variability in distribution gives me headaches. Sanofi didn’t have the balls to come up with values of cut-off variabilities (plural!). Why the heck did they state <X% for low and ≥Y% for high CV? What’s in between? Case-by-case, pick out the best? The FDA is concerned only about high variability and I guess they mean a CVw of 30%.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Spain,
2016-05-27 02:01
(2863 d 15:17 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 16367
Views: 6,779
 

 FDA: crystal ball

Hi Helmut and other members,

I would like to rescue this post to know if any member of the forum could share their experiences using truncated AUC0-72 for FDA studies.

We recently performed a study using AUC0-72 (very low CVw indeed) and we would like to know what could we expect from FDA. Any experiences?

Many thanks
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
111 visitors (0 registered, 111 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:18 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