Bioequivalence Tests Based on Individual Estimates Using Non-compartmental or Model-based Analyses: Evaluation of Estimates of Sample Means and Type I Error for Different Designs

Overview

Journal Pharm Res

Specialties Pharmacology
Pharmacy

Date 2009 Oct 31

PMID 19876723

Citations 16

Authors

Anne Dubois

Sandro Gsteiger

Etienne Pigeolet

France Mentre

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The main objective of this work is to compare the standard bioequivalence tests based on individual estimates of the area under the curve and the maximal concentration obtained by non-compartmental analysis (NCA) to those based on individual empirical Bayes estimates (EBE) obtained by nonlinear mixed effects models.

Methods: We evaluate by simulation the precision of sample means estimates and the type I error of bioequivalence tests for both approaches. Crossover trials are simulated under H ( 0 ) using different numbers of subjects (N) and of samples per subject (n). We simulate concentration-time profiles with different variability settings for the between-subject and within-subject variabilities and for the variance of the residual error.

Results: Bioequivalence tests based on NCA show satisfactory properties with low and high variabilities, except when the residual error is high, which leads to a very poor type I error, or when n is small, which leads to biased estimates. Tests based on EBE lead to an increase of the type I error, when the shrinkage is above 20%, which occurs notably when NCA fails.

Conclusions: For small n or data with high residual error, tests based on a global data analysis should be considered instead of those based on individual estimates.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of model-integrated evidence approaches for pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies using model averaging methods.

Bjugard Nyberg H, Chen X, Donnelly M, Fang L, Zhao L, Karlsson M CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2024; 13(10):1748-1761.

PMID: 39205490 PMC: 11494900. DOI: 10.1002/psp4.13217.

Development and comparison of model-integrated evidence approaches for bioequivalence studies with pharmacokinetic end points.

Chen X, Nyberg H, Donnelly M, Zhao L, Fang L, Karlsson M CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2024; 13(10):1734-1747.

PMID: 39177211 PMC: 11494825. DOI: 10.1002/psp4.13216.

A Bayesian framework for virtual comparative trials and bioequivalence assessments.

Bois F, Brochot C Front Pharmacol. 2024; 15:1404619.

PMID: 39139647 PMC: 11319711. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1404619.

Evaluation of model-based bioequivalence approach for single sample pharmacokinetic studies.

Tardivon C, Loingeville F, Donnelly M, Feng K, Sun W, Sun G CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2023; 12(7):904-915.

PMID: 37114321 PMC: 10349197. DOI: 10.1002/psp4.12960.

Characterizing Absorption Properties of Dispersible Pretomanid Tablets Using Population Pharmacokinetic Modelling.

Zou Y, Nedelman J, Lombardi A, Pappas F, Karlsson M, Svensson E Clin Pharmacokinet. 2022; 61(11):1585-1593.

PMID: 36180816 PMC: 9524735. DOI: 10.1007/s40262-022-01163-w.

References

Maier G, Lockwood G, Oppermann J, Wei G, Bauer P, Grasela T . Characterization of the highly variable bioavailability of tiludronate in normal volunteers using population pharmacokinetic methodologies. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2000; 24(3):249-54. DOI: 10.1007/BF03190028. View

Pentikis H, Henderson J, Tran N, Ludden T . Bioequivalence: individual and population compartmental modeling compared to the noncompartmental approach. Pharm Res. 1996; 13(7):1116-21. DOI: 10.1023/a:1016083429903. View

Zhou H, Mayer P, Wajdula J, Fatenejad S . Unaltered etanercept pharmacokinetics with concurrent methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Pharmacol. 2004; 44(11):1235-43. DOI: 10.1177/0091270004268049. View

Fradette C, Lavigne J, Waters D, Ducharme M . The utility of the population approach applied to bioequivalence in patients: comparison of 2 formulations of cyclosporine. Ther Drug Monit. 2005; 27(5):592-600. DOI: 10.1097/01.ftd.0000174005.51383.2f. View

Hu C, Moore K, Kim Y, Sale M . Statistical issues in a modeling approach to assessing bioequivalence or PK similarity with presence of sparsely sampled subjects. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2004; 31(4):321-39. DOI: 10.1023/b:jopa.0000042739.44458.e0. View

Rescigno A, Powers J, Herderick E . Bioequivalent or nonbioequivalent?. Pharmacol Res. 2001; 43(6):543-7. DOI: 10.1006/phrs.2001.0820. View

Panhard X, Taburet A, Piketti C, Mentre F . Impact of modelling intra-subject variability on tests based on non-linear mixed-effects models in cross-over pharmacokinetic trials with application to the interaction of tenofovir on atazanavir in HIV patients. Stat Med. 2006; 26(6):1268-84. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2622. View

Jusko W, Koup J, Alvan G . Nonlinear assessment of phenytoin bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1976; 4(4):327-36. DOI: 10.1007/BF01063122. View

Kaniwa N, Aoyagi N, Ogata H, Ishii M . Application of the NONMEM method to evaluation of the bioavailability of drug products. J Pharm Sci. 1990; 79(12):1116-20. DOI: 10.1002/jps.2600791215. View

10.

Hayashi N, Aso H, Higashida M, Kinoshita H, Ohdo S, Yukawa E . Estimation of rhG-CSF absorption kinetics after subcutaneous administration using a modified Wagner-Nelson method with a nonlinear elimination model. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2001; 13(2):151-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0928-0987(00)00219-0. View

11.

Liu J, Weng C . Bias of two one-sided tests procedures in assessment of bioequivalence. Stat Med. 1995; 14(8):853-61. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780140813. View

12.

Cao L, Mathew T . A simple numerical approach towards improving the two one-sided test for average bioequivalence. Biom J. 2008; 50(2):205-11. DOI: 10.1002/bimj.200710407. View

13.

Bertrand J, Comets E, Laffont C, Chenel M, Mentre F . Pharmacogenetics and population pharmacokinetics: impact of the design on three tests using the SAEM algorithm. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2009; 36(4):317-39. PMC: 3192406. DOI: 10.1007/s10928-009-9124-x. View

14.

Bertrand J, Treluyer J, Panhard X, Tran A, Auleley S, Rey E . Influence of pharmacogenetics on indinavir disposition and short-term response in HIV patients initiating HAART. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2009; 65(7):667-78. PMC: 2908290. DOI: 10.1007/s00228-009-0660-5. View

15.

Lavielle M, Mentre F . Estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters of saquinavir in HIV patients with the MONOLIX software. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2007; 34(2):229-49. PMC: 1974848. DOI: 10.1007/s10928-006-9043-z. View

16.

Comets E, Verstuyft C, Lavielle M, Jaillon P, Becquemont L, Mentre F . Modelling the influence of MDR1 polymorphism on digoxin pharmacokinetic parameters. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007; 63(5):437-49. PMC: 1963422. DOI: 10.1007/s00228-007-0269-5. View

17.

Lindstrom M, Bates D . Nonlinear mixed effects models for repeated measures data. Biometrics. 1990; 46(3):673-87. View

18.

Samson A, Lavielle M, Mentre F . The SAEM algorithm for group comparison tests in longitudinal data analysis based on non-linear mixed-effects model. Stat Med. 2007; 26(27):4860-75. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2950. View

19.

Bauer R, Guzy S, Ng C . A survey of population analysis methods and software for complex pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models with examples. AAPS J. 2007; 9(1):E60-83. PMC: 2751305. DOI: 10.1208/aapsj0901007. View

20.

Combrink M, McFadyen M, Miller R . A comparison of the standard approach and the NONMEM approach in the estimation of bioavailability in man. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1997; 49(7):731-3. DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1997.tb06101.x. View