Blinded review of PK data: History… [Study Per­for­mance]

posted by kimhuang – China, 2023-10-16 02:43 (274 d 04:03 ago) – Posting: # 23759
Views: 2,232

Dear Helmut,
Thank you very much for your detailed explanation, these stories are very interesting, gaving me a deeper understanding! :-D:-D:-D

❝ ❝ 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?

❝ Fine, makes sense scientifically. We did that for decades. But regulations  science. At least for the FDA and EMA a blinded review of PK data is no more allowed – except assessing pre-dose concentrations. We are even allowed to re-analyze those. Schizo­phre­nic, IMHO.


Now, how we can to handle λz estimation (eg, R square <0.8) and %AUCextrap etc (<80%)? Nothing to do, just include all subject in primary analysis? And exclude such subject as sensitivity analysis?
Thank you very much!


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
Activity
 Admin contact
23,101 posts in 4,857 threads, 1,644 registered users;
90 visitors (0 registered, 90 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 06:47 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

One can show the following: given any rule, however “fundamental”
or “necessary” for science, there are always circumstances
when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule,
but to adopt its opposite.    Paul Feyerabend

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