Long t½ drugs [NCA / SHAM]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2012-12-05 17:04 (4579 d 17:15 ago) – Posting: # 9674
Views: 6,574

(edited on 2012-12-05 17:24)

Hi all,

Would appreciate all your comments with the following scenario... I recently ran a FDA BE study involving an IR product with a long and variable t1/2. The literature value is around 25 hrs with an upper range of 60 hr. I ran a small pilot study (n=6) and the results showed that 96 hours sampling was more than adequate to capture 90% of the PK profile (Helmut will scream at me for using n=6 :-P).

My pivotal study finished with 44 subjects. The study population showed a mean t1/2 of 25 hrs (Range 12-67 hrs) for each treatment. I went ahead with PK blood sampling for 96 hrs (timept before 96 hr was 72 hr). Based on 96 hour sampling, the mean(AUCt/AUCinf) ratio was about 92% for each treatment. Individual data showed 3 subjects to have AUCt/AUCinf ratio of 60% with a t1/2 of greater than 60 hours.

Maybe this is a silly question... Do you think that I might get question from the agency about the 3 subjects? Since the mean t1/2 from each treatment arm was 25 hrs with an upper range of 67 hrs, I can re-evaluate the data as a truncated design (if being asked) and compute AUC0-72.

The result as is for both AUC and AUCi are dead since the 90% CIs were well within 80-125% (Ratio~100%, intra CV~10%). Washout was adequate(3 wks) with no carryovers. I don't have an issue with computing AUC0-72(pass anyway) but I was just curious if I would even get a question from FDA regarding the 3 subjects.

Thanks
John

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,676 registered users;
34 visitors (0 registered, 34 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:19 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