Well done! [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2012-10-09 21:43 (4215 d 12:40 ago) – Posting: # 9362
Views: 12,660

Dear Detlew,

good anwer!

❝ On the other hand the reliable estimation of the terminal rate constant which is needed for a reliable estimate of AUC(0-inf) has the one and only purpose to assure that the observation time is long enough for ensuring that AUC(0-tlast) covers at least 80% of the AUC(0-inf) (or the other way round that the residual area AUC(tlast-inf) is <=20% of AUC(0-inf)).


❝ AUC(0-inf) in itself is not a primary endpoint on which the bioequivalence decision will be based (not according to the EMA guidance and also not according to the Study protocol). The bioequivalence decision taken in the Study Report is thus in no way affected by the way of calculation of the terminal rate constant.


Agree, but some hard-core assessor might tell you that if you cannot reliably estimate AUC you have not demonstrated that AUCt is an acceptable metric for the BE assessment. That’s a vicious circle.

BTW, I didn’t want to go to much off-topic (as I did above) and started another thread about analytical variability.

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
22,993 posts in 4,828 threads, 1,656 registered users;
130 visitors (0 registered, 130 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:24 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Never never never never use Excel.
Not even for calculation of arithmetic means.    Martin Wolfsegger

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