Large Intra-subject Variability in Caffeine Pharmacokinetics: Randomized Cross-over Study of Single Caffeine Product

Abstract

Background Average bioequivalence has been criticized for not adequately addressing individual variations. Importance of subjects’ blinding in bioequivalence studies has not been well studied. We explored the extent of intra-subject pharmacokinetic variability and effect of drug-ingestion unawareness in subjects taking single caffeine product.

Methods A single-dose randomized cross-over design was used to compare pharmacokinetics of 200 mg caffeine, described as caffeine (overt) or as placebo (covert). Maximum concentration (C_max), C_max first time (T_max), area-under-the-concentration-time-curve, to last measured concentration (AUC_T), extrapolated to infinity (AUC_I), or to T_max of overt caffeine (AUC_Overttmax), and C_max/AUC_I were calculated blindly using standard non-compartmental method. Percentages of individual covert/overt ratios that are outside the ±25% range were determined. Covert-vs-overt effect on caffeine pharmacokinetics was evaluated by 90% confidence interval (CI) and 80.00–125.00% bioequivalence range.

Results 32 healthy subjects (6% females, mean (SD) age 33.3 (7.2) year) participated in the study (28 analysed). Out of the 28 individual covert/overt ratios, 23% were outside the ±25% range for AUC_T, 30% for AUC_I, 20% for AUC_Overttmax, 30% for C_max, and 43% for T_max. There was no significant covert-vs-overt difference in any of the pharmacokinetic parameters studied. Further, the 90% CIs for AUC_T, AUC_I, C_max, AUC_Overttmax, and C_max/AUC_I were all within the 80.00–125.00% bioequivalence range with mean absolute deviation of covert/overt ratios of 3.31%, 6.29%, 1.43%, 1.87%, and 5.19%, respectively.

Conclusions Large intra-subject variability in main caffeine pharmacokinetic parameters was noted when comparing an oral caffeine product to itself. Subjects’ blinding may not be important in average bioequivalence studies.

• References

• 1 World Health Organization. Access to new medicines in Europe: technical review of policy initiatives and opportunities for collaboration and research (2015). http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/306179/Access-new-medicines-TR-PIO-collaborationresearch.pdf?ua = 1 Accessed April 24, 2017.
• 2 Dunne S, Shannon B, Dunne C. et al. A review of the differences and similarities between generic drugs and their originator counterparts, including economic benefits associated with usage of generic medicines, using Ireland as a case study. BMC. Pharmacol Toxicol 2013; 14: 1 10.1186/2050-6511-14-1
• 3 Hassali MA, Alrasheedy AA, McLachlan A. et al. The experiences of implementing generic medicine policy in eight countries: A review and recommendations for a successful promotion of generic medicine use. Saudi Pharm J 2014; 22: 491-503
• 4 Davit B, Braddy AC, Conner DP. et al. International guidelines for bioequivalence of systemically available orally administered generic drug products: A survey of similarities and differences. APPS J 2013; 15: 974-990
• 5 Chen M-L, Shah VP, Crommelin DJ. et al. Harmonization of regulatory approaches for evaluating therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability of multisource drug products: Workshop summary report. AAPS J 2011; 13: 556-564
• 6 Statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. US DHHS, FDA, CDER (2001). https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm070244.pdf Accessed April 24, 2017.
• 7 Kaushal N, Singh SK, Gulati M. et al. Study of regulatory requirements for the conduct of bioequivalence studies in US, Europe, Canada, India, ASEAN and SADC countries: Impact on generic drug substitution. J App Pharm Sci 2016; 6: 206-222
• 8 Jiang W, Makhlouf F, Schuirmann DJ. et al. A bioequivalence approach for generic narrow therapeutic index drugs: Evaluation of the reference-scaled approach and variability comparison criterion. AAPS J 2015; 17: 891-901
• 9 Midha KK, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. et al. Bioequivalence: Switchability and scaling. Pharm Sci 1998; 6: 87-91
• 10 Hsuan FC. Some statistical considerations on the FDA draft guidance for individual bioequivalence. Stat Med. 2000; 19: 2879-2884
• 11 Buehler G. History of bioequivalence for critical dose drugs (2010). http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ %20AdvisoryCommittees/%E2 %80 %A6/UCM209319.pdf Accessed April 24, 2017.
• 12 Yim DS. Simulation of the AUC changes after generic substitution in patients. J Korean Med Sci 2009; 24: 7-12
• 13 Ting TY, Jiang W, Lionberger R. et al. Generic lamotrigine versus brand-name Lamictal bioequivalence in patients with epilepsy: A field test of the FDA bioequivalence standard. Epilepsia 2015; 56: 1415-1424
• 14 Hammami MM, Al Gaai E, Alvi S. et al. Interaction between drug and placebo effect: across over balanced placebo design. Trials 2010; 11: 110 10.1186/1745-6215-11-110
• 15 Dickert N, Grady C. What’s the price for a research subject? Approaches to payment for research participation. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 198-203
• 16 Miller FG, Wendler D, Swartzman LC. Deception in research on the placebo effect. PLoS Med. 2005; 2: e262 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020262
• 17 United States Department of Health and Human Services. Institutional review board guidebook (Chapter V): Biomedical and behavioral research – an overview. https://archive.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_chapter5.htm Accessed April 24, 2017.
• 18 American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (including 2010 and 2016 Amendments). http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ Accessed April 24, 2017.
• 19 COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF MEDICAL SCIENCE. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. http://cioms.ch/ethical-guidelines-2016/ WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf Accessed April 24, 2017.
• 20 Alvi NS, Hammami MM. Validated HPLC method for determination of caffeine level in human plasma using synthetic plasma: Application to bioavailability studies. J Chromatogr Sci 2011; 49: 292-296
• 21 Randomization.com. Dallal GE. http://www.randomization.com/ Accessed April 24, 2017.
• 22 Nuzzo R. Scientific method: Statistical errors. Nature 2014; 506: 150-152 10.1038/506150a
• 23 Sterne JAC, Smith GD. Sifting the evidence—what's wrong with significance tests?. BMJ 2001; 322: 226-231
• 24 Birkett DJ. Generics-equal or not?. Aust Prescr 2003; 26: 85-87
• 25 Henney JE. Review of generic bioequivalence studies. JAMA 1999; 282: 1995
• 26 Davit BM, Nwakama PE, Buehler GJ. et al. Comparing generic and innovator drugs: A review of 12 years of bioequivalence data from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Ann Pharmacother 2009; 43: 1583-1597
• 27 Yu Y, Teerenstra S, Neef C. et al. Investigation into the interchangeability of generic formulations using immunosuppressants and a broad selection of medicines. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2015; 71: 979-990
• 28 Johnston A. Equivalence and interchangeability of narrow therapeutic index drugs in organ transplantation. Eur J Hosp Pharm Sci Pract 2013; 20: 302-307
• 29 Atif M, Azeem M, Sarwar MR. Potential problems and recommendations regarding substitution of generic antiepileptic drugs: A systematic review of literature. Springerplus 2016; 5: 182
• 30 Vercaigne LM, Zhanel GG. Clinical significance of bioequivalence and interchangeability of narrow therapeutic range drugs: Focus on warfarins. J Pharm Pharm Sci 1988; 1: 92-94
• 31 Richton-Hewett S, Foster E, Apstein CS. Medical and economic consequences of a blinded oral anticoagulant brand change at a municipal hospital. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 806-808
• 32 Reiffel JA, Kowey PR. Generic antiarrhythmics are not therapeutically equivalent for the treatment of tachyarrhythmias. Am J Cardiol 2000; 85: 1151-1153
• 33 Tóthfalusi L, Endrényi L, Chow SC. Statistical and regulatory considerations in assessments of interchangeability of biological drug products. Eur J Health Econ 2014; 15 (Suppl. 01) S5-11
• 34 Therapeutic equivalence of generic drugs. Response to National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US FDA (1997).https://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/howdrugsaredevelopedandapproved/approvalapplications/abbreviatednewdrugapplicationandagenerics/ucm073224.htm Accessed April 24, 2017.