AUC∞ = lousy metric [NCA / SHAM]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2013-06-20 22:32 (4382 d 17:15 ago) – Posting: # 10843
Views: 8,161

Hi Helmut,

❝ Yes & no. The variability is higher because it depends on Clast which is expected to be the most variable data point of the profile. That’s trivial.


Agree especially when the value is low enough to approach LLoQ.

❝ More interesting is that AUC might also be biased especially for two-compartment PK and caused by not always ‘catching’ the true λz in the area of LLOQ.


Exactly but for BE purposes (I mean ANDA) which is limited to Non-compartmental analysis (correct me if I wrong), this alone will lead to biased estimation of Kel.

John

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,677 registered users;
46 visitors (0 registered, 46 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:48 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

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