Truncted AUC, low variability [Design Issues]
Hi ssussu,
which is your “target” agency? If you want to submit the study to the (US)FDA you have to provide the protocol to the OGD for review anyway.
BTW, I never understood why the FDA allows AUC0–72 for drugs with “low intrasubject variability in distribution and clearance” only. The latter might be possible to show based on published data (though difficult because one needs the subjects’ λz). The former isalmost impossible without raw data and PK modeling. In BE we are interested in absorption (property of both the drug and the formulation). Distribution/elimination are solely properties of the drug. I don’t get the FDA’s rationale.
I agree with what ElMaestro wrote. You posted in the right category – that’s a design issue. Think about planing the washout. It is based on an expected half-life (literature, previous studies). No agency* asks for a demonstration that f.i. the washout was 5–10×t½ of subjects (only that there are no residual concentrations >5% of Cmax in higher periods).
It is an open question what a “long half-life drug” is. An numerous conferences both the FDA and the EMA refused to give a definition. Only the Canadian HPFB formerly stated t½ ≥24 hours.
which is your “target” agency? If you want to submit the study to the (US)FDA you have to provide the protocol to the OGD for review anyway.
BTW, I never understood why the FDA allows AUC0–72 for drugs with “low intrasubject variability in distribution and clearance” only. The latter might be possible to show based on published data (though difficult because one needs the subjects’ λz). The former is
❝ If I just sampling for 72hr, how can I prove the drug is a long half life drug?
I agree with what ElMaestro wrote. You posted in the right category – that’s a design issue. Think about planing the washout. It is based on an expected half-life (literature, previous studies). No agency* asks for a demonstration that f.i. the washout was 5–10×t½ of subjects (only that there are no residual concentrations >5% of Cmax in higher periods).
It is an open question what a “long half-life drug” is. An numerous conferences both the FDA and the EMA refused to give a definition. Only the Canadian HPFB formerly stated t½ ≥24 hours.
- In Taiwan one has to demonstrate that the saturation phase in multiple dose studies was “sufficient”. Hence these poor guys have to sample beyond τ…
—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png)
Helmut Schütz
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png)
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png)
Helmut Schütz
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png)
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- long half life drug bioequivalence study design ssussu 2017-08-16 11:45 [Design Issues]
- long half life drug bioequivalence study design ElMaestro 2017-08-16 12:53
- long half life drug bioequivalence study design ssussu 2017-08-17 10:18
- Truncted AUC, low variabilityHelmut 2017-08-16 14:18
- Truncted AUC, or AUCinf, which one ssussu 2017-08-17 10:15
- Truncted AUC, or AUCinf, which one ElMaestro 2017-08-17 10:47
- Truncted AUC, or AUCinf, which one ssussu 2017-08-18 07:13
- Truncted AUC, or AUCinf, which one ElMaestro 2017-08-17 10:47
- Truncted AUC, low variability jag009 2017-08-17 23:50
- Truncted AUC, or AUCinf, which one ssussu 2017-08-17 10:15
- long half life drug bioequivalence study design ElMaestro 2017-08-16 12:53