AUC * k [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-10-01 17:01 (267 d 11:25 ago) – Posting: # 22612
Views: 1,261

Dear Detlew,

» what do you think is a reasonable assumption about the distribution of the metric AUC*k?

Since both are lognormal, their ratio should be lognormal as well. I trust here Martin; will meet him in the evening and ask again. Furthermore, the distribution of values per se is not important, only the residual error.

One of my 4-period full replicate studies (143 subjects, Method A)

[image]


» Do we have to throw away our evaluation of BE studies assuming log-normal distri of the metrics AUC and/or Cmax?

Not at all – if they passed. ;-) Too bad if they failed and would have passed with AUC·k…

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖 [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
22,167 posts in 4,645 threads, 1,572 registered users;
online 14 (0 registered, 14 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 04:26 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The person interested in success has to learn
to view failure as a healthy, inevitable part
of the process of getting to the top.    Joyce Brothers

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