About "PK repeats" [Software]

posted by Ohlbe – France, 2009-09-15 00:01 (6121 d 05:43 ago) – Posting: # 4200
Views: 19,143

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
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,570 registered users;
162 visitors (0 registered, 162 guests [including 18 identified bots]).
Forum time: 05:45 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Actually, science starts to become interesting
only where it ends.    Justus von Liebig

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