blood sampling [Study Per­for­mance]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2007-11-04 14:45 (6374 d 04:25 ago) – Posting: # 1279
Views: 24,204

Dear Ohlbe!

❝ Corrections for time deviations in AUC calculations usually result only in negligible differences in AUC results.


Not only in the results (as stated by G Pabst based on simulations), but even more pronounced in the context of bioequivalence. Deviations of AUCs obtained from scheduled sampling times instead of from the more correct actual ones simply mean out in the calculation of BE (point estimate, confidence interval).
A couple of years ago I evaluated quite a lot of studies in both ways to get some impressions. Results generally differed to less than 0.1% (!) in terms of BE…

❝ But as always, I prefer to see things planned and described in advance, either in the protocol or in SOPs.


Me too! I’m always suggesting to use actual sampling times, but everybody should be aware that the crucial point is not the method of calculation (actual vs planned), but the location of sampling points.
IMHO the most important region is around Cmax.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,708 registered users;
40 visitors (0 registered, 40 guests [including 13 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:11 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Nothing is more difficult to simulate than intelligence.    Daniel Kehlmann

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