LLOQ “low enough”? [Bioanalytics]
Hi Helmut,
Sorry typo
... I meant to push down the ULoQ to 100ng/mL (or 150 ng/mL from current 200ng/mL) and lower the LLoQ to below 1ng/ml(Not sure how low yet. As you mentioned I will need to check the chemist first). I think with a 0.25-0.5ng/mL as LLoQ maybe doable.
If 40% of the subjects still show many BLQs with some detectable values not much higher than the LLoQ while the other 1/2 show normal concentration ranges then I don't see how I can justify that the parent compound measurement is deemed reliable for bioequivalence assessment. I don't think I will see this happening with future studies having 2x the dose though...
Thanks
John
❝ Sounds OK, but didn’t you see no values >LLOQ in ~40% of the subjects?
Sorry typo

If 40% of the subjects still show many BLQs with some detectable values not much higher than the LLoQ while the other 1/2 show normal concentration ranges then I don't see how I can justify that the parent compound measurement is deemed reliable for bioequivalence assessment. I don't think I will see this happening with future studies having 2x the dose though...
Thanks
John
Complete thread:
- FDA definition of non-accurately and reliably jag009 2013-01-09 22:20
- Experiences with EU submissions Helmut 2013-01-10 14:03
- Experiences with EU submissions jag009 2013-01-10 16:36
- Experiences with EU submissions Helmut 2013-01-10 16:56
- Experiences with EU submissions jag009 2013-01-10 20:07
- LLOQ “low enough”? Helmut 2013-01-10 20:46
- LLOQ “low enough”?jag009 2013-01-11 15:20
- LLOQ “low enough”? Ohlbe 2013-01-11 19:16
- LLOQ “low enough”? jag009 2013-01-11 20:14
- LLOQ “low enough”? Ohlbe 2013-01-11 19:16
- LLOQ “low enough”?jag009 2013-01-11 15:20
- LLOQ “low enough”? Helmut 2013-01-10 20:46
- Experiences with EU submissions jag009 2013-01-10 20:07
- Experiences with EU submissions Helmut 2013-01-10 16:56
- Experiences with EU submissions jag009 2013-01-10 16:36
- Experiences with EU submissions Helmut 2013-01-10 14:03