Statistical issues in a modeling approach to assessing bioequivalence or PK similarity with presence of sparsely sampled subjects.

Drug development at different stages may require assessment of similarity of pharmacokinetics (PK). The common approach for such assessment when the difference is drug formulation is bioequivalence (BE), which employs a hypothesis test based on the evaluation of a 90% confidence interval for the ratio of average pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters. The role of formulation effect in BE assessment is replaced by subject population in PK similarity assessment. The traditional approach for BE requires that the PK parameters, primarily AUC and Cmax, be obtained from every individual. Unfortunately in many clinical circumstances, some or even all of the individuals may be sparsely sampled, making the individual evaluation difficult. In such cases, using models, particularly population models, becomes appealing. However, conducting an appropriate statistical test based on population modeling in a form consistent, at least in principle, with traditional 90% confidence interval approach is not so straightforward as it may appear. This manuscript proposes one such approach that can be applied to sparse sampling situations. The approach aims to maintain, as much as possible, the appropriateness of the hypothesis test. It is applied to data from clinical studies to address a need in drug development for assessment of PK similarity in different populations.

The pharmacokinetics of sumatriptan when administered with norethindrone 1 mg/ethinyl estradiol 0.035 mg in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Because the majority of migraineurs are young women in their peak reproductive years, it is important to understand the possible effects on the pharmacokinetics of both medications when sumatriptan is coadministered with an oral contraceptive (OC). OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of multiple dosing of the OC norethindrone 1 mg/ethinyl estradiol 0.035 mg (NE/EE) on the single-dose pharmacokinetics of sumatriptan in healthy volunteers. Secondary objectives were to determine the effect of a single dose of sumatriptan on the multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of NE and EE, and to assess the safety and tolerability of the combination. METHODS: This was an open-label, 1-sequence, crossover study in healthy women who had been receiving NE/EE for at least 3 months. Subjects received 1 cycle of NE/EE, consisting of 21 days of OC and 7 days of placebo. They also received a single dose of sumatriptan 50 mg on the last day of the OC or placebo regimen. Blood samples for the determination of plasma sumatriptan concentrations were collected on days 21 and 28, and blood samples for the determination of plasma NE and EE concentrations were collected on days 20 and 21. Treatments were compared by analysis of variance. Equivalence between treatments was to be concluded if the 90% Cl for the ratio of reference to test means for log(e)-transformed parameters (area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUCI and maximum measured plasma concentration [C(max)]) for each analyte fell within the interval 0.80 to 1.25. RESULTS: Twenty-six women (mean age, 29.8 years; age range, 18-44 years; weight range, 52-82 kg) participated in the study. The 90% CI for the ratio of reference to test means for the AUC extrapolated to infinity (AUC(infinity)) of sumatriptan was 1.11 to 1.22, and the 90% CIs for the AUC over the dosing interval at steady state (AUC(tau)) of NE and EE were 0.96 to 1.00 and 0.91 to 0.97, respectively. The 90% CIs for the ratio of reference to test means for the C(max) of sumatriptan, NE, and EE were a respective 1.05 to 1.30, 0.76 to 0.88, and 0.88 to 1.04. Study treatments were well tolerated. Adverse events were mild or moderate, and there were no clinically significant changes in vital signs or laboratory values. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of absorption (AUC) of sumatriptan, NE, and EE was similar after oral administration of sumatriptan and NE/EE, both alone and in combination. Thus, in the opinion of the study investigators, there were no clinically relevant changes in the AUC of any of the medications when sumatriptan and NE/EE were administered concomitantly compared with administration alone. The results of this study suggest that dose adjustment is not necessary when sumatriptan is administered concomitantly with NE/EE in healthy premenopausal women.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of intranasal sumatriptan.

A substantial proportion of migraine patients have gastric stasis and suffer severe nausea and/or vomiting during their migraine attack. This may lead to erratic absorption from the gastrointestinal tract and make oral treatment unsatisfactory. For such patients, an intranasal formulation may be advantageous. Sumatriptan is a potent serotonin 5HT(1B/1D) agonist widely used in the treatment of migraine; the effectiveness of the intranasal formulation (20mg) has been well established in several clinical studies. This article reviews the pharmacokinetics of intranasal sumatriptan and includes comparisons with oral and subcutaneous administration. After intranasal administration, sumatriptan is directly and rapidly absorbed, with 60% of the maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) occurring at 30 minutes after administration of a single 20mg dose. Following intranasal administration, approximately 10% more sumatriptan is absorbed probably via the nasal mucosa when compared with oral administration. Mean C(max) after a 20mg intranasal dose is approximately 13.1 to 14.4 ng/mL, with median time to C(max) approximately 1 to 1.75 hours. When given as a single dose, intranasal sumatriptan displays dose proportionality in its extent of absorption and C(max) over the dose range 5 to 10mg, but not between 5 and 20mg for C(max). The elimination phase half-life is approximately 2 hours, consistent with administration by other routes. Sumatriptan is metabolised by monoamine oxidase (MAO; predominantly the A isozyme, MAO-A) to an inactive metabolite. Coadministration with a MAO-A inhibitor, moclobemide, leads to a significant increase in sumatriptan plasma concentrations and is contraindicated. Single-dose pharmacokinetics in paediatric and adolescent patients following intranasal sumatriptan were studied to determine the effect of changes in nasal morphology during growth, and of body size, on pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacokinetic profile observed in adults was maintained in the adolescent population; generally, factors such as age, bodyweight or height did not significantly affect the pharmacokinetics. In children below 12 years, C(max) is comparable to that seen in adolescents and adults, but total exposure (area under the concentration-time curve from zero to infinity) was lower in children compared with older patients, especially in younger children treated with 5mg. Clinical experience suggests that intranasal sumatriptan has some advantages over the tablet (more rapid onset of effect and use in patients with gastrointestinal complaints) or subcutaneous (noninvasive and fewer adverse events) formulations.

The pharmacokinetics of sumatriptan when administered with clarithromycin in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics such as clarithromycin are potent inhibitors of the cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4 isozyme and have the potential to attenuate the metabolism and increase blood concentrations of drugs metabolized by this pathway. In vitro studies have suggested that sumatriptan is metabolized primarily by the monoamine oxidase-A isozyme and not by CYP3A4. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine the effect of coadministration of clarithromycin dosed to steady state on the pharmacokinetics of a single dose of sumatriptan. A secondary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of combining these agents. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, 2-way crossover study in healthy volunteers. During treatment period 1, subjects received either a single oral dose of sumatriptan 50 mg (sumatriptan alone) or clarithromycin 500 mg orally every 12 hours on days 1 to 3 and a single oral dose of sumatriptan 50 mg plus a single oral dose of clarithromycin 500 mg on the morning of day 4 (combination treatment). During treatment period 2, they received the alternative regimen. Equivalence between sumatriptan alone and combination treatment was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of reference to test means of loge-transformed data for area under the plasma concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC(infinity)) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) fell within the interval from 0.8 to 1.25. RESULTS: In the 24 evaluable subjects (12 men, 12 women) included in the pharmacokinetic analysis, mean sumatriptan AUC(infinity) and Cmax values after administration of combination treatment were 9% and 14% higher, respectively, than the corresponding values after administration of sumatriptan alone. The 90% CI for the ratio of reference to test means for AUC(infinity) was 1.03 to 1.15. The 90% CI for the ratio of reference to test means for Cmax was 1.03 to 1.26, above the traditional bioequivalence criterion. All other pharmacokinetic parameters tested, including nonparametric analysis of the time to Cmax, met the criterion for equivalence between treatments. Both treatments were well tolerated in the 27 subjects (13 men, 14 women) included in the safety analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of absorption of sumatriptan was similar after oral administration alone and in combination with clarithromycin dosed to steady state. These data are consistent with previous reports that sumatriptan is unaffected by coadministration with the potent CYP3A4 inhibitor clarithromycin, supporting concomitant administration of these agents without the need for dose adjustment of sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine.