actual time for INPUT, nominal for the summarisation/report [NCA / SHAM]

posted by SDavis Homepage – UK, 2012-04-17 13:13 (4811 d 14:10 ago) – Posting: # 8426
Views: 13,785

Hi I think I concur with Helmut. To summarise;

Actual sampling times are the preferred input since deviations are then accounted for already. Then you are requesting partial AUC to nominal 72 h to have the EQUIVALENT time period for all subjects (as requested by the protocol).

That's how I've always analysed my data over the last 15+years. Slightly more tricky is when protocol requests 0-72 and some samples were not quantifiable at that timepoint, again if you have a value for Lz this will be extrapolated for you but for profiles with no Lz then WNL will do it's best to extrapolate, effectively using AUCall (or a fraction thereof) with all the inherent assumptions and approximations of that metric. On these occasions I would be tempted to consider reporting an AUC to last COMMON timepoint e.g. 48.

Again AUCinf(pred) would probably be a preferred comparison parameter, where available.

Simon

Simon
Senior Scientific Trainer, Certara™
[link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX-yCO5Rzag[/link]
https://www.certarauniversity.com/dashboard
https://support.certara.com/forums/

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,677 registered users;
21 visitors (0 registered, 21 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 03:24 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
HTML5