Drug Res (Stuttg) 2017; 67(08): 451-457
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-105797
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Effect of Different Sampling Schedules on Results of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies: Evaluation by Means of Monte Carlo Simulations

Eunice Kazue Kano
1   Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Chang Chiann
2   Mathematics and Statistics Institute, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Kazuo Fukuda
1   Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Valentina Porta
1   Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 14 October 2016

accepted 09 March 2017

Publication Date:
23 May 2017 (online)

Abstract

Bioavailability and bioequivalence study is one of the most frequently performed investigations in clinical trials. Bioequivalence testing is based on the assumption that 2 drug products will be therapeutically equivalent when they are equivalent in the rate and extent to which the active drug ingredient or therapeutic moiety is absorbed and becomes available at the site of drug action. In recent years there has been a significant growth in published papers that use in silico studies based on mathematical simulations to analyze pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of drugs, including bioavailability and bioequivalence aspects. The goal of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of in silico studies as a tool in the planning of bioequivalence, bioavailability and other pharmacokinetic assays, e.g., to determine an appropriate sampling schedule. Monte Carlo simulations were used to define adequate blood sampling schedules for a bioequivalence assay comparing 2 different formulations of cefadroxil oral suspensions. In silico bioequivalence studies comparing different formulation of cefadroxil oral suspensions using various sampling schedules were performed using models. An in vivo study was conducted to confirm in silico results. The results of in silico and in vivo bioequivalence studies demonstrated that schedules with fewer sampling times are as efficient as schedules with larger numbers of sampling times in the assessment of bioequivalence, but only if Tmax is included as a sampling time. It was also concluded that in silico studies are useful tools in the planning of bioequivalence, bioavailability and other pharmacokinetic in vivo assays.

 
  • References

  • 1 Meredith PA. Generic drugs: therapeutic equivalence. Drug Saf 1996; 15: 233-242
  • 2 Labes D, Schutz H. Inflation of type I error in the evaluation of scaled average bioequivalence, and a method for its control. Pharm Res 2016; 33: 2805-2814
  • 3 Chow SC, Liu JP. Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. 3rd ed. New York: Chapman Hall/CRC Press, Taylor & Francis; 2008
  • 4 Chow SC. Bioavailability and bioequivalence in drug development. WIREs Comput Stat 2014; 6: 304-312
  • 5 Macheras P, Karalis V, Valsami G. Keeping a critical eye on the science and the regulation of oral drug absorption: A review. J Pharm Sci 2013; 102: 3018-3036
  • 6 Curley P, Rajoli RKR, Moss DM. et al. Efavirenz is predicted to accumulate in brain tissue: An in silico, in vitro, and in vivo investigation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2017; 61: 1-10
  • 7 Lacy-Jones K, Haywar P, Andrews S. et al. Biopharmaceutics data management system for anonymised data sharing and curation: First application with orbito IMI project. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2017; 140: 29-44
  • 8 Lignet F, Sherbetjian F, Kratochwil N. et al. Characterization of pharmacokinetics in the Göttingen Minipig with reference human drugs: an in vitro and in vivo approach. Pharm Res 2016; 33: 2565-2579
  • 9 Sjogren E, Thorn H, Tannergren C. In silico modeling of gastrointestinal drug absorption: predictive performance of three physiologically based absorption models. Mol Pharmaceutics 2016; 13: 1763-1778
  • 10 Kong FH, Gonin R. Optimal sampling times in bioequivalence tests. J Biopharm Stat 2000; 10: 21-44
  • 11 Piotrovskij VK, Gajdos M, Illek B. et al. Application of a population pharmacokinetic modeling to bioavailability bioequivalence study of cefadroxil preparations. Int J Pharm 1995; 119: 213-221
  • 12 Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), European Medicines Agency (EMA). 2010
  • 13 Guidance for industry: bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products – general considerations. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration. 2003
  • 14 Ritschel WA, Kearns GL. Handbook of basic pharmacokinetics including clinical applications. 7th ed. Washington: American Pharmacists Association; 2009
  • 15 McEvoy GK, Miller J, Litvak K. editors. AHFS drug information. Bethesda: American society of health system pharmacists; 2005
  • 16 Abdallah HY, Ludden MT. A Spreadsheet program for simulation of bioequivalence and bioavailability studies. Comput Biol Med 1995; 25: 349-354
  • 17 Kano EK, Serra CHR, Koono EEM. et al. An efficient HPLC-UV method for the quantitative determination of cefadroxil in human plasma and its application in pharmacokinetic studies. J Liq Chromatogr Relat Technol 2012; 35: 1871-1881
  • 18 Shen M, Russek-Cohen E, Slud EV. Exact calculation of power and sample size in bioequivalence studies using two one-sided tests. Pharmaceut. Statist 2015; 14: 95-101
  • 19 Schütz H. Two-stage designs in bioequivalence trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2015; 71: 271-281
  • 20 Karalis V, Macheras P. On the statistical model of the two-stage designs in bioequivalence assessment. J Pharm Pharmacol 2013; 66: 48-52
  • 21 Bonate PL. Simulation studies on the estimation of total area under the curve in the presence of right-tailed censoring. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2015; 42: 19-32
  • 22 Colucci P, Turgeon J, Ducharme MP. How critical is the duration of the sampling scheme for the determination of half-life, characterization of exposure and assessment of bioequivalence?. J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci 2011; 14: 217-226
  • 23 Paixão P, Gouveia LF, Morais JAG. An alternative single dose parameter to avoid the need for steady-state studies on oral extended-release drug products. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2012; 80: 410-417
  • 24 Kim SE, Zheng R, Kang D. et al. Compartmental approach to assess bioequivalence compared to the noncompartmental approach. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2016; 54: 442-449
  • 25 Midha KK, Hubbard JW, Rawson M. et al. The application of partial areas in assessment of rate and extent of absorption in bioequivalence studies of conventional release products: experimental evidence. Eur J Pharm Sci 1994; 2: 351-363