LLOQ “low enough”? [Bioanalytics]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2013-01-11 16:20 (4520 d 16:10 ago) – Posting: # 9827
Views: 8,001

Hi Helmut,

❝ Sounds OK, but didn’t you see no values >LLOQ in ~40% of the subjects?


Sorry typo :-P... 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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,674 registered users;
78 visitors (0 registered, 78 guests [including 17 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:30 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It’s difficult to work in a group
when you are omnipotent.    John de Lancie (as Q)

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