Paola
☆    

Italy,
2011-12-21 13:58
(4481 d 05:27 ago)

Posting: # 7799
Views: 6,784
 

 pre-dose concentrations above LLOQ [Study As­sess­ment]

Dear all,

The bioanalytical results from a BE study (crossover, 3 periods, 36 healthy volunteers) shown the concentrations at the pre-dose sampling time above the LLOQ.

These results occur in 20% of the subjects, and for each subject happen in more than one period, and always during the period 1, before the starting of the drug administration.

Following several bioanalytical check, the results seem to be correlated to an eventual contamination of the pre-dose samples during the clinical phase, rather than to a bioanalytical bias.

All these pre-dose values (except for one subject) are lower than 5% of the respective Cmax.
Since the EMA guideline on BE reports that, if the pre-dose concentration is greater than 5 % of the Cmax value, the subject being removed from the analysis, we cannot exclude these data from the statistical analysis.

Which is in your opinion the most suitable approach to treat our bioanalytical results?
What is the position of the regulatory authorities in these cases?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

best regards,
Paola


Edit: Category changed. [Helmut]
ElMaestro
★★★

Denmark,
2011-12-21 15:34
(4481 d 03:51 ago)

@ Paola
Posting: # 7800
Views: 6,028
 

 pre-dose concentrations above LLOQ

Hi Paola,

❝ The bioanalytical results from a BE study (crossover, 3 periods, 36 healthy volunteers) shown the concentrations at the pre-dose sampling time above the LLOQ.


❝ These results occur in 20% of the subjects, and for each subject happen in more than one period, and always during the period 1, before the starting of the drug administration.


Period 1 is a little problematic, this suggests that washout isn't the issue.

❝ Following several bioanalytical check, the results seem to be correlated to an eventual contamination of the pre-dose samples during the clinical phase, rather than to a bioanalytical bias.


"Seem"? Can you say anything with certainty?
If some period 1 predose tubes were contaminated, why weren't all of them? Were some tubes with positive values likely contaminated?

❝ Which is in your opinion the most suitable approach to treat our bioanalytical results?

❝ What is the position of the regulatory authorities in these cases?


I think I would audit the whole thing. Not sure this study is of submission quality in the absence of some concrete answers re. the origin and extent of the problem. Did you ask "why" five times?

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Paola
☆    

Italy,
2011-12-22 17:58
(4480 d 01:27 ago)

@ ElMaestro
Posting: # 7812
Views: 5,969
 

 pre-dose concentrations above LLOQ

Dear ElMaestro,

thank you for your answer.

❝ Period 1 is a little problematic, this suggests that washout isn't the issue.


Yes, we exclude the wash-out as a source of the problem.

❝ ❝ Following several bioanalytical check, the results seem to be correlated to an eventual contamination of the pre-dose samples during the clinical phase, rather than to a bioanalytical bias.


❝ "Seem"? Can you say anything with certainty?

❝ If some period 1 predose tubes were contaminated, why weren't all of them? Were some tubes with positive values likely contaminated?


Since we are excluding that the concentration > LLOQ at pre-dose time could be due to bioanalytical issue, we think that the source of the problem could be the contamination of some tubes, probably following the contamination of the head of the pipettes.
It could be possible that not all tubes were contaminated, because both the operators that handle the blood samples and the pipettes used are not always the same during each treatment period.

However I used "seem" because it is not easy to demonstrate this kind of contamination.

❝ ❝ Which is in your opinion the most suitable approach to treat our bioanalytical results?

❝ ❝ What is the position of the regulatory authorities in these cases?


❝ I think I would audit the whole thing. Not sure this study is of submission quality in the absence of some concrete answers re. the origin and extent of the problem. Did you ask "why" five times?


Unfortunately, excluding a bioanalytical bias, it is difficult for us to demonstrate that a contamination was made.

Best regards,
Paola
Ohlbe
★★★

France,
2011-12-22 23:06
(4479 d 20:19 ago)

@ Paola
Posting: # 7814
Views: 6,005
 

 pre-dose concentrations above LLOQ

Dear Paola,

❝ Since we are excluding that the concentration > LLOQ at pre-dose time could be due to bioanalytical issue, we think that the source of the problem could be the contamination of some tubes, probably following the contamination of the head of the pipettes.


Strange. The tubes are usually processed time-point wise. If this is indeed the way your clinic works, all pre-dose samples in Period 1 will have been pipetted before the first post-dose sample was processed. Unless the clinic did another study on the same molecule just before, how did the pipette get contaminated ?

How did you exclude that it was a bioanalytical issue ?

Regards
Ohlbe

Regards
Ohlbe
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2011-12-21 16:30
(4481 d 02:55 ago)

@ Paola
Posting: # 7801
Views: 6,101
 

 pre-dose concentrations above LLOQ

Ciao Paola!

❝ The bioanalytical results from a BE study (crossover, 3 periods, 36 healthy volunteers) shown the concentrations at the pre-dose sampling time above the LLOQ.

❝ These results occur in 20% of the subjects, and for each subject happen in more than one period, and always during the period 1, before the starting of the drug administration.


I’m not sure whether I do understand you correctly. In those 20% of subjects do you get pre-dose concentrations in all periods? Please clarify.

❝ Following several bioanalytical check, the results seem to be correlated to an eventual contamination of the pre-dose samples during the clinical phase, rather than to a bioanalytical bias.


I know the term ‘contamination’ is sometimes used – but how should that practically occur? Somebody spiking vacutainers at BD’s factory (sabotage)? The drug leaking from the formulation, sneeking downstairs to the room where the centrifuges are, and slipping into sample vials? I would rather say it’s an analytical issue.

❝ All these pre-dose values (except for one subject) are lower than 5% of the respective Cmax.


At least we are talking about small concentrations. Are you using LC/MS-MS or a ligand-binding assay? Guidelines call for checking of interferences and the matrix-effect in ≥6 sources of matrix. Even if you were successful in validation it might be possible to be hit in a larger study by pure chance. In the future consider checking more than six sources of blank matrix if you plan for a large study.

❝ Since the EMA guideline on BE reports that, if the pre-dose concentration is greater than 5 % of the Cmax value, the subject being removed from the analysis, we cannot exclude these data from the statistical analysis.

❝ Which is in your opinion the most suitable approach to treat our bioanalytical results?


According to the GL you should report all data and remove subject’s data of all periods where pre-dose concentrations are >5% of Cmax. This procedure should have been stated in the protocol. Was it?

❝ What is the position of the regulatory authorities in these cases?


I’m not a regulator. Personal experience close to nil. Messed up a 36 subject 3 treatment study (two tests, one reference) ten years ago where the wash-out was too short (stupidly we improved the LLOQ by a factor of five compared to a pilot study) and found pre-dose concentrations in the second period in 21 subjects and in the third period in 18 subjects (but all of them <5% Cmax). We presented:
  1. Evaluation as planned (ignoring pre-dose values).
  2. Evaluation based on the first period only (i.e., as a parallel design).
  3. Estimating λz including the pre-dose values of the respective next period. Correcting all concentrations in higher period(s) based on the estimated time-course of earlier period(s).
Both test formulations were BE based on all methods. Study was accepted (mainly based on [2] – study was large enough). Nowadays [1] would be sufficient. [2] is statistically flawed and should not be done according to the GL [“A test for carry-over is not considered relevant and no decisions regarding the analysis (e.g. analysis of the first period only) should be made on the basis of such a test.”]. [3] only for very adventurous people.


Note: Your company’s e-mail server rejects mail sent from the forum (SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<your e-mail-address>: error 550: 86.59.107.243 is not allowed to send mail from bebac.at). Please talk to your IT-gurus (whitelist the domain and/or the IP) and switch off e-mail notifications in your posts in the meantime.

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
Paola
☆    

Italy,
2011-12-22 18:16
(4480 d 01:09 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 7813
Views: 6,046
 

 pre-dose concentrations above LLOQ

Dear HS,

thank you for your answer.

❝ ❝ These results occur in 20% of the subjects, and for each subject happen in more than one period, and always during the period 1, before the starting of the drug administration.


❝ I’m not sure whether I do understand you correctly. In those 20% of subjects do you get pre-dose concentrations in all periods? Please clarify.


Just to clarify: the 20% of all subjects shown pre-dose concentrations above LLOQ in period 1.
The 12% of all subjects shown pre-dose concentrations in all periods (1+2+3).
The 10% of all subjects shown pre-dose concentrations in two periods (periods 1+2 or periods 1+3).

❝ ❝ Following several bioanalytical check, the results seem to be correlated to an eventual contamination of the pre-dose samples during the clinical phase, rather than to a bioanalytical bias.


❝ I know the term ‘contamination’ is sometimes used – but how should that practically occur? Somebody spiking vacutainers at BD’s factory (sabotage)? The drug leaking from the formulation, sneeking downstairs to the room where the centrifuges are, and slipping into sample vials? I would rather say it’s an analytical issue.


It could be possible that sometimes the contamination of the head of the pipettes causes the samples contamination (assuming obviously that the tips are always changed).
Regarding the bioanalysis, the samples have been analyzed 3 times, using both the 1st and 2nd aliquote; the repeated analysis confirmed the results. Carry over is checked for each run and during the analytical study no carryover was evidenced.

❝ At least we are talking about small concentrations. Are you using LC/MS-MS or a ligand-binding assay? Guidelines call for checking of interferences and the matrix-effect in ≥6 sources of matrix. Even if you were successful in validation it might be possible to be hit in a larger study by pure chance. In the future consider checking more than six sources of blank matrix if you plan for a large study.


I confirm that we used LC/MS/MS method.

❝ According to the GL you should report all data and remove subject’s data of all periods where pre-dose concentrations are >5% of Cmax. This procedure should have been stated in the protocol. Was it?


Yes, of course! we included this as criteria of exclusion in the protocol.

❝ ❝ What is the position of the regulatory authorities in these cases?


❝ I’m not a regulator. Personal experience close to nil. Messed up a 36 subject 3 treatment study (two tests, one reference) ten years ago where the wash-out was too short (stupidly we improved the LLOQ by a factor of five compared to a pilot study) and found pre-dose concentrations in the second period in 21 subjects and in the third period in 18 subjects (but all of them <5% Cmax). We presented:

  1. Evaluation as planned (ignoring pre-dose values).

  2. Evaluation based on the first period only (i.e., as a parallel design).

  3. Estimating λz including the pre-dose values. Correcting all concentrations in higher period(s) based on the estimated time-course of earlier period(s).
Both test formulations were BE based on all methods. Study was accepted (mainly based on [2] – study was large enough). Nowadays [1] is enough. [2] is statistically flawed and should not be done according to the GL [“A test for carry-over is not considered relevant and no decisions regarding the analysis (e.g. analysis of the first period only) should be made on the basis of such a test.”]. [3] only for very adventurous people.


Since we have 20% of the pre-dose concentration in period 1, we exclude that the problem is correlated with a short wash-out period. Therefore we think that we cannot use in our case an approach like your to present our results...

Thank you for the example on your experience and for your advices.

Best regards,
Paola
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
88 visitors (0 registered, 88 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:26 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Nothing shows a lack of mathematical education more
than an overly precise calculation.    Carl Friedrich Gauß

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