Reasons? [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by dshah  – India/United Kingdom, 2021-08-24 14:06 (966 d 06:52 ago) – Posting: # 22538
Views: 2,010

Hi Helmut

I have following thoughts w.r.t. to my points.

1. Change in subject will cause change in concentration. Even MVR of many regulatory and ISR also permits ~15% variation at Cmax point. The Cmax is generally variable than AUC. So if the ratio difference is +/- 15%, the discussion shall be of no point. But still may point out that there is difference.

2. BA method and same instrument needs to be mentioned. It could have impact.


❝ ❝ 3. Same Internal standard batch? Change in internal standard changes height and thus ultimately concentration.


❝ Given, the IS response might be different. However, even if calibrators and QC samples are prepared with, say, an IS of just 50% of the declared content in one of the studies, the back-calculated concentrations should be similar and therefore, the T/R-ratios.


Although, it sounds odd, Even for NTI- with same CRO- Method-Instrument; I have witnessed change in concentration with just change in IS batch. It may have similar T/R but even there was difference in T/R.

I hope this may help.
Regards,
Dshah

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,984 posts in 4,822 threads, 1,651 registered users;
53 visitors (0 registered, 53 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:59 CEST (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