Blinded NCA [Study Per­for­mance]

posted by kimhuang – China, 2023-10-14 13:53 (284 d 12:54 ago) – Posting: # 23754
Views: 2,409

❝ For an example see this presentation (Case 1, slides 4–7). If NCA would have been performed unblinded (i.e., by treatment) the carry-over likely would not have been detected.

Dear Helmut,
Thank you very much!
what does PPT slides 11 means?
– Blinded review of data for irregular profiles?
– According the Bioanalytical Method Validation Guideline
measured results are ‘carved from stone’
» Exclusion of data only possible if documented error
» Not even repeated analysis acceptable
– Was acceptable until 2022
» Exclusion after repeated analysis possible if defined by SOP
– Currently like EMA

In China, it's common to discuss PK parameters (without treatment assignment, such as pre-dose concentration, abnormal PK concentration profiles, λz estimation, %AUCextrap etc.) to decide analysis set in data review meeting before database lock, is it still compliant with regulatory?

Edit: Full quote removed. Please delete everything from the text of the original poster which is not necessary in understanding your answer; see also this post #5[Helmut]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
23,127 posts in 4,859 threads, 1,646 registered users;
43 visitors (0 registered, 43 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 02:47 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

No problem can stand the assault of sustained thinking.    Voltaire

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