Difference between actual and published PK parameters [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by dshah  – India/United Kingdom, 2022-02-14 19:39 (790 d 18:43 ago) – Posting: # 22781
Views: 2,240

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
22,983 posts in 4,822 threads, 1,648 registered users;
30 visitors (0 registered, 30 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:23 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

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