Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log-in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  Query: 2017-11-24 06:47 CET (UTC+1h)
 
martin
Senior

Austria,
2017-05-08 19:50

Posting: # 17322
Views: 1,069
 

 endogenous compounds [Regulatives / Guidelines]

Dear all,

I would like to open again a new thread regarding endogenous compounds in BE assessments.

Simple case:

- assuming no circadian rhythm / temporarily constant
- baseline subtraction method (e.g. median of at several pre-dose samples)

Several guidelines mention that a negative pre-dose corrected value should be set to zero. However, what about subsequent levels?

I think setting also all concentrations after the first negative to zero would make some sense as otherwise we just have “noise” in the AUC (i.e. increase variability) and it’s rather impossible to get a reliable estimate for lambda_z (for calculation of AUC0-inf). I think this should be also in-line with guidelines as the method for baseline subtraction needs to be specified a-priori.

Best regards and looking forward to thoughts from more experienced members in this forum

Martin

PS.: premise of stable endogenous could be verified by looking at adjusted concentrations after the first negative (inclusive) adjusted concentration: should be symmetrically distributed around zero.
Helmut
Hero
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2017-05-08 21:10

@ martin
Posting: # 17324
Views: 884
 

 endogenous compounds

Hi Martin,

» Several guidelines mention that a negative pre-dose corrected value should be set to zero. However, what about subsequent levels?
» I think setting also all concentrations after the first negative to zero would make some sense […] this should be also in-line with guidelines as the method for baseline subtraction needs to be specified a-priori.

Well, this is exactly what I have done for ages. never got a deficiency letter. :-D

» PS.: premise of stable endogenous could be verified by looking at adjusted concentrations after the first negative (inclusive) adjusted concentration: should be symmetrically distributed around zero.

Really? You explained that to me so may times; excuse my walnut-sized brain. Baseline (C0) = lognormal. Post-dose (C1) = lognormal. C0–C1 = normal?

C0     <- rlnorm(n=1e6, meanlog=log(1)-0.5*log(0.3^2+1), sdlog=sqrt(log(0.3^2+1)))
C1     <- rlnorm(n=1e6, meanlog=log(2)-0.5*log(0.3^2+1), sdlog=sqrt(log(0.3^2+1)))
C1.adj <- C1-C0
C1.adj[C1.adj < 0] <- 0 # force to zero
mean(C0);sd(C0)/mean(C0)
mean(C1);sd(C1)/mean(C1)
mean(C1.adj);sd(C1.adj)/mean(C1.adj)
summary(C1.adj)
qqnorm(y=C1.adj, col="blue", cex=0.5, las=1)
qqline(y=C1.adj, col="red", lwd=2)


[image]Regards,
Helmut Schütz 
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes
martin
Senior

Austria,
2017-05-08 21:19

@ Helmut
Posting: # 17325
Views: 873
 

 endogenous compounds

Hi Helmut,

Thank you very much for your response - much appreciated.

Regarding distributions - thank you for the reminder & sorry for not being clear

We look at the end of the profile assuming C0=C1 this would lead to
C0     <- rlnorm(n=1e6, meanlog=log(1)-0.5*log(0.3^2+1), sdlog=sqrt(log(0.3^2+1)))
C1     <- rlnorm(n=1e6, meanlog=log(1)-0.5*log(0.3^2+1), sdlog=sqrt(log(0.3^2+1)))
C1.adj <- C1/C0
hist(log(C1.adj)) # taking the log-normal distribution into account


best regards

Martin
Back to the forum Activity
 Thread view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum | Admin contact
17,494 Posts in 3,746 Threads, 1,087 registered users;
34 users online (0 registered, 34 guests).

The belief that there is only one truth and
that oneself is in possession of it,
seems to me the deepest root of all
that is evil in the world.    Max Born

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