one size fits all vs goal posts [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Astea – Russia, 2019-02-16 08:33  – Posting: # 19926
Views: 1,247

Dear Mittyri!

Thank you for your remarkable example! I've got it. But there could be some phylosophical thoughts: may be 60 is a miss (error or samples were mixed) than what whould be better - to calculate the square under 30-60-2 triangle carefully or to calculate the square under the curve assuming log elimination? If we have a large sample size in the study and noone presents the same pharmacokinetic features than it's a reason to think what that could be.

» I don't think the default WNL NCA rules will change since it can break a lot of templates and projects. Name it as unhealthy and lazy conservatism ;-)

Don't believe in it cause I observe a lot of changes and improvements while using PHX through years :-)

Another point is that I used PHX NCA like a standard candle (maybe regulators do it as well?). But it turns out that in some rare extreme cases it is worth to think about alternative approaches. Would it be accepted? How to be sure that the method stated in SAP would work better than PHX algo? Is it possible to explain in the report any disagreement with PHX output?

Complete thread:

Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,478 posts in 4,133 threads, 1,333 registered users;
online 10 (0 registered, 10 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 04:35 CEST

If you don’t know anything about computers,
just remember that they are machines that do exactly what you tell them
but often surprise you in the result.    Richard Dawkins

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5