Difference between actual and published PK parameters [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by dshah  – India/United Kingdom, 2022-02-14 19:39 (742 d 19:11 ago) – Posting: # 22781
Views: 2,030

Hi Loky do:

❝ the study practical results for t1/2 was 8.8 Hours, the AUCextra/AUCobs % values for all volunteers were below 20%, resulting in AUC0-t/AUCobs% values of more than 80%; hence, the sampling times’ intervals and concentrations were sufficient to detect extent of drug absorption. Also, the limit of detection was from 5.00 – 1000 ng/mL, as the LLOQ represented 1% of practical results of practical results of Cmax for test and reference products

I agree with Helmut.
I believe that as per regulatory guideline- we are doing NCA for BE determination over compartmental analysis, so unless your AUCt/AUCinf>0.8 which determines that sampling time point (extent of exposure) of and analytical method are capable enough captures appropriate elimination half life.
I believe that one another alternative could be to take available literature of BE and determine BE with AUC0-24. Over here- make sure that AUC0-24/AUCinf>0.8 for that literature and justify that lowering the LLOQ may not be useful as you have already meet the regulatory requirement.
Kindly go through- doi:10.1002/cpdd.866. As per the article, the mean profile is given below:


The GMR along with 90% CI is given below:


Although you may not have individual data, make a point that AUC0-24/AUCinf>0.8.
Ideally you are meeting the regulatory requirement.

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,912 posts in 4,806 threads, 1,636 registered users;
37 visitors (0 registered, 37 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 14:51 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