AUCt not covering at least 80% of AUCinf [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2013-03-06 12:10 (4469 d 12:45 ago) – Posting: # 10158
Views: 31,014

Hello Ratnakar,

❝ Yes, in more than 20% of observations AUCinf has been extrapolated for more than 20% and i have received a query from EMA to discuss the validity of the study.


From EMA? I guess you mean from one or more of the national agencies?

❝ I am just thinking what all points should be considered for the justification and further is there any way by which it can be justified?


Try and tell why this happened in the first place. If it was not intended then I guess your study could be argued to be slightly badly planned for which there are no obvious and acceptable excuses. On the other hand if you deliberately shortened sampling time for some reason (PI opinion, ethics, ADME-tox properties) then please give a little further info and let's see.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,675 registered users;
49 visitors (0 registered, 49 guests [including 34 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:56 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Nerds don’t just happen to dress informally.
They do it too consistently.
Consciously or not, they dress informally
as a prophylactic measure against stupidity.    Paul Graham

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