So what? [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-06-06 12:02 (174 d 12:49 ago) – Posting: # 21502
Views: 5,571

Hi Nastia,

» Until now I thought that the rule of 80% AUCinf was invented in order to demonstrate that the total duration of sampling is sufficient.

Read the entire thread again. ;-)
I’m referring to the EMA’s guideline. Too lazy to Google-translate the ones in Russian.
The phrase in the EMA’s guideline “The sampling schedule should also cover the plasma concentration time curve long enough to provide a reliable estimate of the extent of exposure…” is nonsense. Why it was invented [sic] is beyond my intellectual reach.
» But consider a following case: […]

The tmax is ≤ 1 h and hence, t½,a ≤ 30 minutes. It means that at four hours ≥ 99.6% were already absorbed. That’s what we are interested in. What follows shows that we have a two-compartment model (and possibly additional enterohepatic recycling). Nice to know, but already described by the innovator, right?
Any () AUC after 2–4times tmax is a reliable estimate of the extent of exposure. Full stop.

» So I may conclude, although the rule was not followed, the duration of the sampling time was sufficient. In this case the rule may indicate: too large distance between sample time points (48-24=24) that is an error in study planning or too large LLOQ. Am I right in this conclusion?

EMA: “Subjects should not be excluded from the statistical analysis if AUC0–t covers less than 80% of AUC0–∞, but if the percentage is less than 80% in more than 20% of the observations then the validity of the study may need to be discussed.”

OK, discuss it. It’s quite possible that even with an additional sampling point at 36 h (≥ LLOQ) you would have ended with < 80% AUC0–∞ as well. For an IR formulation you could have sampled longer and with AUC0–72 this entire extrapolation business would disappear.
Let’s play the devil’s advocate. IR formulation, drug has a fast distribution and long elimination, the LLOQ is sufficient to measure all samples at the last sampling time t; two studies:
  1. t = 71 h → AUC0–71 (< 80% AUC0–∞ in all cases):
    Problem (why?).
  2. t = 72 h → AUC0–72 (assessment of AUC0–t/AUC0–∞ not required):
    No problem (why not?).

» How can regulators interpret this issue?

Can or will? Regulators have the whip hand and therefore, can do whatever they like. If the assessor is a “checkbox-bureaucrat”, cards are stacked against you. If the assessor is a scientist, IMHO, good chances.

Science should always be the basis
of regulatory requirements.

    Joachim Röhmel (former head of biostatistics/BfArM)
    30th Annual Conference of the International Society fo Clinical Biostatistics.
    Prague, August 25th, 2009.





Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,214 posts in 4,427 threads, 1,482 registered users;
online 7 (1 registered, 6 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 23:52 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Biostatistician. One who has neither the intellect for mathematics
nor the commitment for medicine but likes to dabble in both.    Stephen Senn

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