Truncated 72 hours [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-07-16 13:56 (1401 d 20:00 ago) – Posting: # 21711
Views: 4,261

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
23,029 posts in 4,834 threads, 1,641 registered users;
32 visitors (0 registered, 32 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:57 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best–
and therefore never scrutinize or question.    Stephen Jay Gould

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