Truncted AUC, low variability [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2017-08-16 16:18 (2734 d 03:33 ago) – Posting: # 17693
Views: 9,265

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 is almost 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.

❝ 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.



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
23,376 posts in 4,912 threads, 1,662 registered users;
249 visitors (0 registered, 249 guests [including 19 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:51 CET (Europe/Vienna)

There are sadistic scientists who hurry to hunt down errors
instead of establishing the truth.    Marie Curie

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