pAUC72 or pAUC72+x [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2012-04-05 20:25 (4824 d 08:39 ago) – Posting: # 8391
Views: 13,812

Dear sciguy!

❝ Yes, 72.6 was the latest sampling time observed. For a BE study, I understand the rationale of setting the pAUC limit to 72hr. But....for an exploratory PK study (where there is no equivalence assessment), should we still set this limit (ie: is there any reason to just use each subject's actual time at 72hr?) My guess is to just stick with the 72 hr limit..


In a PK study maybe you are interested in modeling as well? Just use the actual time points. Even if you stick with NCA, more emphasis in this type of study lies on AUC anyway (prediction of steady state based on superposition etc.). For the reasoning of the truncation time point of 72 hours see my final remark in this post. In real life we rarely see negative time deviations (i.e., sample taken too early); might only be relevant if the last sample is missing. Generally the sample is taken either at the nominal time point or is delayed. If you have taken the latest sample in the study at 72.6 hours it would mean that you have to extrapolate all the others – a procedure I (!) would not prefer.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,672 registered users;
50 visitors (0 registered, 50 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 05:04 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical researches can be divided into two sorts:
those who think that meta is better and those
who believe that pooling is fooling.    Stephen Senn

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