Reanalysis for PK Reason: Gone with the Wind [Bioanalytics]

posted by Ohlbe – France, 2020-07-16 19:16 (1166 d 17:07 ago) – Posting: # 21718
Views: 4,869

Dear Scopy and Helmut,

❝ ❝ I am trying to get my head around why reanalyzing a blank sample because it had values above LLOQ in the initial analysis is not considered reanalysis for pharmacokinetic reason.

❝ Congratulations for discovering this inconsistency.

Not necessarily an inconsistency: in the EMA guideline, PK re-analysis is not acceptable only for BE trials, but the guideline is applicable to all bioanalytical work. Confirming the presence of the analyte in a pre-dose sample could be relevant for other types of studies (and even worse, finding analyte in a placebo-treated subject, or animal in a TK study).

❝ ❝ My thinking is...if a pre-dose sample gives a detectable peak area on analysis and on evaluation, there seem to be no explanation for this, why is it okay to reanalyze it again?

❝ That’s against scientific thinking.

I do see a scientific value: trying to understand whether this could be due to a contamination or analytical carry-over. But I agree this could be done under the reanalysis for "laboratory investigations" allowed by the guideline.

Other potential argument: the potential influence on AUC is very limited and there is no influence on Cmax, so there is no risk that such re-analysis may be done in order to make a failing study pass (which I did see once in the past).

❝ According to the current guidelines (EMA 2011, FDA 2018, ICH draft 2019) it is no more acceptable. IMHO, bad science.


❝ In the past it was acceptable to perform a blinded review of data and have rules for reanalysis / exclusion in the protocol. Regrettably, those days are gone and – understandable – paranoia (driven by the many cases of fraud) prevails.

Strangely enough, according to discussions I had with people involved in drafting the EMA guideline, it seems that it was the assessors who did not want to hear about PK repeats, not the inspectors – though the latter are well known for their paranoia, and for good reasons.

❝ * Funny term. What is ‘rich chromatography’?



Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,759 posts in 4,775 threads, 1,628 registered users;
26 visitors (0 registered, 26 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:24 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one,
take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory
nor the problem which it was intended to solve.    Karl R. Popper

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