Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum 02:31 CET

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

anbu
Junior

India,
2018-09-12 10:17

Posting: # 19269
Views: 459
 

 subject withdrawn after bioanalysis [Study As­sess­ment]

A subject had vomited within the 2 times of tmax period, as per pk person discussion, he continued and completed the study. After bioanalysis of the sample again pk persons, taking decision to withdraw a subject. does this procedure is fine? kindly explain the same.


Edit: Category changed; see also this post #1. Please follow the Forum’s Policy[Helmut]
Helmut
Hero
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2018-09-12 12:34

@ anbu
Posting: # 19272
Views: 399
 

 Cherry-picking?

Hi Anbu,

» A subject had vomited within the 2 times of tmax period, as per pk person discussion, he continued and completed the study.

Always nice to have a discussion but what did the protocol state?

» After bioanalysis of the sample again pk persons, taking decision to withdraw a subject. does this procedure is fine?

No, it doesn’t look fine at all – even if the protocol would have stated sumfink like

“if a subject vomited within 2times median tmax of the reference product he will be excluded from comparative assessments based on the judgment of the pharmacokineticists”.

Not a good idea. It would be unacceptable after calculating the PE and CI – smells fishy / cherry-picking. Still doubtful if done before by “eye-ball PK” (i.e., looking at the profiles). :lookaround:
You had two discussions. In the first one the pharmacokineticists concluded that vomiting would not matter. In the second one he revised his opinion. Now what?

Maybe you are interested in this recent guidance of the FDA. Under major BE deficiencies you will find:
  • Inadequate or insufficient in vivo studies […] requiring submission of new studies. Examples include […] exclusion of study outliers […] and other PK […] issues.
  • Insufficient justification for protocol deviations, such as inclusion or exclusion of subjects.
The EMA’s BE-GL is more specific:

In principle any reason for exclusion is valid provided it is specified in the protocol and the decision to exclude is made before bioanalysis.
Examples of reasons to exclude the results from a subject in a particular period are events such as vomiting and diarrhoea which could render the plasma concentration-time profile unreliable.
The permitted reasons for exclusion must be pre-specified in the protocol.
Exclusion of data cannot be accepted on the basis of statistical analysis or for pharmacokinetic reasons alone, because it is impossible to distinguish the formulation effects from other effects influencing the pharmacokinetics.


I suggest that you perform two analyses:
  1. All subjects (confirmatory).
  2. Excluding the subject as a sensitivity analysis.
If both pass BE, #2 is supportive. If not (e.g., #1 fails and #2 passes), IMHO, cards are stacked against you.
Next time state the reasons for exclusion – before bioanalysis – in the protocol as suggested by the EMA.

Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes
anbu
Junior

India,
2018-09-12 13:17

@ Helmut
Posting: # 19274
Views: 389
 

 Cherry-picking?

Thank you for the immediate response, let me go through the referred guideline and analyse the case.


Edit: Please follow the Forum’s Policy[Helmut]
Activity
 Thread view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
18,882 posts in 4,026 threads, 1,271 registered users;
online 32 (0 registered, 32 guests [including 28 identified bots]).

Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful,
is the basic building block of the universe.
I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen,
and that is the basic building block of the universe.    Frank Zappa

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5 RSS Feed