BQL in BE and PK modeling [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-07-08 08:23 (140 d 11:12 ago) – Posting: # 21656
Views: 1,660

Hi Ben and all,

» Well, another approach would be to fight for getting all measured values, including the ones where the lab tells us they are flagged as BLQ …

Join “El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha” in his tilting at windmills…

» … (yes, yes, I know they are "not reliable", whatever that means).

Easy. At the LLOQ: Accuracy ≤20% and precision ≤20% in chromatography, ≤30% in ligand binding assays. Can be higher, if justified (hard data demonstrating that it is impossible to comply with the rules).
<nitpick>

In chemistry we are bound to the [image] IUPAC’s terminology: inaccuracy, imprecision.
A method with an accuracy of 20% would be useless.* :thumb down:

</nitpick>

» But I have the feeling it is still better to use them than to ignore or set them to some fixed value.

Agree. Gut-feeling as well.

» I had a nice discussion with Helmut about this topic. :-)

A summary: At the first Crystal City meeting about bioanalytical method validation (Arlington 1990) there were heated debates about the topic. Essentially there were two parties: Regulators wanted to have a ‘general rule’ in order to avoid discussions with applicants. Members of the PK modeling community strongly opposed that:At the archives of David Bourne’s PKPD-list you find a lot of related discussions (LLOQ, BQL). Experienced modelers like Roger Jeliffe, Nick Holford, and Hans Proost refused the idea of dropping BQLs. Quoting Nick Holford:

There is no reason not to use these values. It is just silliness that chemists fail to give you the measurements because of an arbitrary cut off that has no real meaning for pharmaco­kinetic analysis. Omitting these values will always cause bias.
One thing is sure about the true concentration – until sufficient time has passed for less than one molecule to be left in the body then the concentration is not 0. This is longer than most people live…


Hence, in my CRO we had an SOP:
» … question is also how to simulate such unreliable data...

By (truncated?) lognormal distributions.

» is it just data with higher variability?

Nope. Higher (in)accuracy as well.



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
21,210 posts in 4,426 threads, 1,481 registered users;
online 10 (0 registered, 10 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 19:36 UTC (Europe/Vienna)

You can’t fix by analysis
what you bungled by design.    Richard J. Light, Judith D. Singer, John B. Willett

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