Missing values [Study Per­for­mance]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2008-07-31 12:38 (6125 d 14:19 ago) – Posting: # 2113
Views: 16,769

❝ ❝ "Exclusion of data can never be accepted on basis of stat analysis or ❝ for PK reasons alone."

❝ IMHO defining ‘critical regions’ of the profile in the protocol is not a bad idea. No “[…] PK reasons alone”, but common sense added!

❝ If one wants to come up with a hard-core justification of the ‘critical regions’: perform PK modeling (pilot study or literature data) and plot the partial derivatives of parameters vs. time; extremes (min/max) will indicate most influential time points. Remark: never seen this in a protocol – maybe freaks like me do it at home. :cool:


Hi,

Dat's a good point to make, HS.
But I think the current trend is towards more 'cook book' and less science or judgment. It might be difficult to make a recipe for this situation which is not based on some degree of subjectivity (subjectivity- sometimes disguised as 'common sense' - is something that can be tricky to handle for regulators as well as applicants, I think). Let me emphasize, I like the idea nevertheless.
However, I could also imagine regulators thinking "Plan the study well, make sure it is robust towards 'eventualities'. If the loss of two samples (or whatever) is remotely/reasonably possible then of course a study should be planned so that such an event does not scr¤w it all up. If a study is planned well it will not be necessary to fiddle around with data." or something along those lines.

N'est-ce pas?

EM.

--
Edit: Full quote removed. Please see this post! [Jaime]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,672 registered users;
165 visitors (0 registered, 165 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 02:57 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Freedom is always and exclusively
freedom for the one
who thinks differently.    Rosa Luxemburg

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