2018-07-24 21:17
(1959 d 12:47 ago)

Posting: # 19094
Views: 2,636

 Need of cross validation between 2 different cc range [Bioanalytics]

In a clinical trial study where multiple doses are done and evaluation of PK concentration is carried out by 2 different bioanalytical method having different cc range (Low and high) and analysis is being done in different lab (Low cc range in lab 1 and high CC range in lab 2). should we conduct cross validation between both method. If yes then how will be the design of the cross validation.

Edit: Please follow the Forum’s Policy[Helmut]

2018-07-25 11:33
(1958 d 22:31 ago)

@ Lmsmqa
Posting: # 19095
Views: 2,122

 Need of cross validation between 2 different cc range

Hello Lmsmqa,

excellent topic to bring up, actually.
Strictly speaking the residuals in your model will be affected by the bioanalytical method, i.e. they are not necessarily IID within or between.
Having said that, there are so many other assumptions in this game that I believe that if both assays are individually passing the validation criteria then there is no big issue and I don't have worry to the extent that I would think it is in the patient's interest to have additional crossvalidation. But I cannot qualify it further, it is gut feeling only.
Possibly one could specify method as a fixed factor with two levels in the model. This could at least be said to (try to) take bioanalytical accuracy differences into account but not precision differences.

Pass or fail!
Vienna, Austria,
2018-07-25 14:39
(1958 d 19:25 ago)

@ Lmsmqa
Posting: # 19098
Views: 2,132

 Cross validation: same concentration range

Hi Lmsmqa,

❝ In a clinical trial study where multiple doses are done…

Do I get you right – a high accumulation ratio leading to low concentrations after a single dose and high ones in steady state? If not, can you elaborate on the design and its purpose?

Cross validation (e.g., Deming regression, Bland–Altman plot) compares two methods in the same concentration range.

If you really want to go that way, you would have to:
  • Measure spiked samples by method 2 (high range).
  • Dilute samples suitable for method 1 (low range).
    Important: Measuring diluted samples has to be validated in method 1.
  • Measure samples by method 1.
  • Cross validate based on results obtained by method 2 (divided by the dilution factor) vs. obtained by method 1 (diluted).
Personally I agree with ElMaestro’s gut feeling that – as long as both methods are validated – cross validation might not be necessary.

PS: Personally I never came across such a case. In BE studies of widely spread doses (and hence, concentrations) we regularly used different calibration ranges. Was never a regulatory issue to accept the entire submission package.
On the other hand, in dose proportionality studies and SD/MD with high accumulation we always used a method covering the entire range. Was sometimes difficult (limited range of the MS, quenching in fluorescence detection: quadratic model, weighting 1/x², 1/y², or – better – 1/s²y). I would never use different methods and/or different labs in the same study.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,811 posts in 4,783 threads, 1,638 registered users;
27 visitors (0 registered, 27 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:04 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I have never in my life learned anything
from any man who agreed with me.    Dudley Field Malone

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