About "PK repeats" [Software]

posted by Ohlbe – France, 2009-09-15 00:01 (6115 d 18:13 ago) – Posting: # 4200
Views: 19,125

Dear Helmut,

❝ why did it never happen to me? Pure chance or because I always state what is planned not only in an SOP but also in the protocol? I’m guessing that a lot of troubles are originating from all types of post-hoc ‘decisions’.


Agreed.

❝ We still reanalyse not only the ‘suspect value’, but neighbouring values as well. These values serve as internal validators.


Yes, I still do like this concept.

❝ ❝ IMHO it is a real pity that regulators are allergic to "PK repeats".


❝ Are they? Is it because repeats are generally badly documented or do you think that there are other reasons?


Paranoia is the other reason, I guess. Afraid that the lab might repeat some samples so that borderline 90 % CI switch from the wrong side of the border to the right. Would take quite a few repeats for AUC, but not that many for Cmax. But then we're back to the discussion on blind review by an experienced pharmacokineticist.

❝ Maybe Pharsight should consider a code for such a value ('Rejected' instead of 'Missing'?). Numerically it could be handled like a missing one – but it❝ should be clear in the output that an experimental result exists.


Suggestion supported.

Regards
Ohlbe

Regards
Ohlbe

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,653 posts in 4,991 threads, 1,570 registered users;
116 visitors (0 registered, 116 guests [including 26 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:15 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

To propose that poor design can be corrected by subtle analysis techniques
is contrary to good scientific thinking.    Stuart J. Pocock

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