Truncated 72 hours [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-07-16 13:56 (1321 d 05:41 ago) – Posting: # 21711
Views: 3,874

Hi Mahmoud,

❝ Is it possible to use a model-based approach to estimate the overall/typical value of Ke or CL and use that for prediction of such points ?


Since PK modeling is not acceptable in BE, no. Furthermore, an average value might be misleading. Imagine the drug is subjected to polymorphic metabolism. The 90% extensive metabolizers have an average t½ of 4 hours and the 10% poor metabolizers 16 hours. You end up with an overall (geometric mean) t½ 4.59 hours. Now you could think about basing the decision to which group the subject belongs (i.e., instead of the average, use 4 or 16 hours) on the AUC. Spice the data with high between subject variability and you are at a loss.

❝ Or is it simpler to just perform a log-linear regression on averaged/all terminal points (3xTmax) and use that estimate to account for such deviations as defined in protocol.


That’s exactly what I do (and performed in Phoenix/WinNonlin when you specify a partial AUC0–72 with missings and/or deviations from the scheduled 72 hours sampling).

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
22,912 posts in 4,806 threads, 1,636 registered users;
32 visitors (0 registered, 32 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:38 CET (Europe/Vienna)

It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding
to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than negatives.    Francis Bacon

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