One of the major concerns for all in vivo experiments is intra- and inter-subject variability, which can be a great source of inaccuracy. The aim of this study is, therefore, to estimate the ability of parallel vs. cross-over design studies in order to describe the relative pharmacokinetic performance of the studied drug formulations. We analyzed the data from a drug development program that examined the performance of innovative abiraterone acetate formulations against the identical reference product in three stages. In stages 1-3, groups A-F were dosed with the reference product once in a parallel manner. Stage 4 was performed to evaluate the intra-individual variability (IIV) by repeated administration of the reference product to the same animals. Although the geometric mean (90% CI) values of abiraterone AUClast in groups A-F were similar to the IIV group (24.36 (23.79-41.00) vs. 26.29 (20.56-47.00) mg/mL·min·g), the results generated in the isolated parallel groups provided imprecise estimates of the true AUClast values ranging from 9.62 to 44.62 mg/mL·min·g due to chance. Notably, in 4 out of 15 possible pair comparisons between the parallel groups, the confidence intervals did not include 100%, which is the true ratio for all comparisons tested after identical formulation administration to all groups. A cross-over design can significantly improve the methodology in short-term comparative pre-clinical pharmacokinetic studies, and can provide more precise and accurate results in comparison to more traditional pre-clinical study designs.

Department of Analytical Chemistry Faculty of Science Charles University Hlavova 8 12800 Prague Czech Republic

Department of Pharmacology 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University and General University Hospital Prague Albertov 4 12800 Prague Czech Republic

Zentiva k s U Kabelovny 130 10237 Prague Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

Singh S.S. Preclinical pharmacokinetics: An approach towards safer and efficacious drugs. Curr. Drug Metab. 2006;7:165–182. doi: 10.2174/138920006775541552. PubMed DOI

Buchanan J.R., Burka L.T., Melnick R.L. Purpose and guidelines for toxicokinetic studies within the National Toxicology Program. Environ. Health Perspect. 1997;105:468–471. doi: 10.1289/ehp.105-1469880. PubMed DOI PMC

Jaiswal S., Sharma A., Shukla M., Vaghasiya K., Rangaraj N., Lal J. Novel pre-clinical methodologies for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction studies: Spotlight on “humanized” animal models. Drug Metab. Rev. 2014;46:475–493. doi: 10.3109/03602532.2014.967866. PubMed DOI

Lin L.C., Pai Y.F., Tsai T.H. Isolation of Luteolin and Luteolin-7-O-glucoside from Dendranthema morifolium Ramat Tzvel and Their Pharmacokinetics in Rats. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015;63:7700–7706. doi: 10.1021/jf505848z. PubMed DOI

Vrublova E., Vostalova J., Vecera R., Klejdus B., Stejskal D., Kosina P., Zdarilova A., Svobodova A., Lichnovsky V., Anzenbacher P., et al. The toxicity and pharmacokinetics of dihydrosanguinarine in rat: A pilot study. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008;46:2546–2553. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2008.04.013. PubMed DOI

Zhu X.H., Jiao J.J., Zhang C.L., Lou J.S., Liu C.X. Limited sampling strategy in rats to predict the inhibited activities of hepatic CYP3A. Lab. Anim. 2009;43:284–290. doi: 10.1258/la.2008.008032. PubMed DOI

Wittenburg L.A., Thamm D.H., Gustafson D.L. Development of a limited-sampling model for prediction of doxorubicin exposure in dogs. Vet. Comp. Oncol. 2014;12:114–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5829.2012.00340.x. PubMed DOI PMC

Nicolas J.M., Espie P., Molimard M. Gender and interindividual variability in pharmacokinetics. Drug Metab. Rev. 2009;41:408–421. doi: 10.1080/10837450902891485. PubMed DOI

Daublain P., Feng K.I., Altman M.D., Martin I., Mukherjee S., Nofsinger R., Northrup A.B., Tschirret-Guth R., Cartwright M., McGregor C. Analyzing the Potential Root Causes of Variability of Pharmacokinetics in Preclinical Species. Mol. Pharm. 2017;14:1634–1645. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b01118. PubMed DOI

Yu G., Zheng Q.S., Li G.F. Similarities and Differences in Gastrointestinal Physiology between Neonates and Adults: A Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling Perspective. AAPS J. 2014;16:1162–1166. doi: 10.1208/s12248-014-9652-1. PubMed DOI PMC

Lu C.X., An X.X., Yu Y., Jiao L.R., Canarutto D., Li G.F., Yu G. Pooled Analysis of Gastric Emptying in Patients with Obesity: Implications for Oral Absorption Projection. Clin. Ther. 2021;43:1768–1788. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2021.08.006. PubMed DOI

Li G.F., Zheng Q.S., Yu Y., Zhong W., Zhou H.H., Qiu F., Wang G., Yu G., Derendorf H. Impact of Ethnicity-Specific Hepatic Microsomal Scaling Factor, Liver Weight, and Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2 Content on Physiologically Based Prediction of CYP1A2-Mediated Pharmacokinetics in Young and Elderly Chinese Adults. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2019;58:927–941. doi: 10.1007/s40262-019-00737-5. PubMed DOI

Crabbe J.C., Wahlsten D., Dudek B.C. Genetics of Mouse Behavior: Interactions with Laboratory Environment. Science. 1999;284:1670–1672. doi: 10.1126/science.284.5420.1670. PubMed DOI

Karp N.A., Speak A.O., White J.K., Adams D.J., de Angelis M.H., Hérault Y., Mott R.F. Impact of temporal variation on design and analysis of mouse knockout phenotyping studies. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e111239. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111239. PubMed DOI PMC

Gurav S., Punde R., Farooqui J., Zainnudin M., Rajagopal S., Mullangi R. Development and validation of a highly sensitive method for the determination of abiraterone in rat and human plasma by LC-MS/MS-ESI: Application to a pharmacokinetic study. Biomed. Chromatogr. 2011;26:761–768. doi: 10.1002/bmc.1726. PubMed DOI

R Core Team . R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R Core Team; Vienna, Austria: 2020. [(accessed on 30 August 2021)]. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/

Animal Welfare Act. [(accessed on 9 September 2021)]; Available online: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title7/pdf/USCODE-2013-title7-chap54.pdf.

Aarons L., Ogungbenro K. Optimal design of pharmacokinetic studies. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2010;106:250–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2009.00533.x. PubMed DOI

Takemoto S., Yamaoka K., Nishikawa M., Yano Y., Takakura Y. Bootstrap method-based estimation of the minimum sample number for obtaining pharmacokinetic parameters in preclinical experiments. J. Pharm. Sci. 2010;99:2176–2184. doi: 10.1002/jps.21975. PubMed DOI

Valic M.S., Halim M., Schimmer P., Zheng G. Guidelines for the experimental design of pharmacokinetic studies with nanomaterials in preclinical animal models. J. Control. Release. 2020;323:83–101. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.04.002. PubMed DOI

FDA Guidance for Industry: Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies Submitted in NDAs or INDs—General Considerations. [(accessed on 9 September 2021)]; Available online: https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Bioavailability-and-Bioequivalence-Studies-Submitted-in-NDAs-or-INDs-%E2%80%94-General-Considerations.pdf.

FDA Guidance for industry: Bioequivalence Studies with Pharmacokinetic Endpoints for Drugs Submitted under an ANDA. [(accessed on 9 September 2021)]; Available online: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/bioequivalence-studies-pharmacokinetic-endpoints-drugs-submitted-under-abbreviated-new-drug.

EMA Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence. [(accessed on 9 September 2021)]. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-investigation-bioequivalence-rev1_en.pdf.

Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes. [(accessed on 11 September 2021)]. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02010L0063-20190626.

Development of immediate-release formulation with reliable absorption of rivaroxaban in various meal regimes

Ivacaftor pharmacokinetics and lymphatic transport after enteral administration in rats