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

Conventional approaches for establishing bioequivalence (BE) between test and reference formulations using non-compartmental analysis (NCA) may demonstrate low power in pharmacokinetic (PK) studies with sparse sampling. In this case, model-integrated evidence (MIE) approaches for BE assessment have been shown to increase power, but may suffer from selection bias problems if models are built on the same data used for BE assessment. This work presents model averaging methods for BE evaluation and compares the power and type I error of these methods to conventional BE approaches for simulated studies of oral and ophthalmic formulations. Two model averaging methods were examined: bootstrap model selection and weight-based model averaging with parameter uncertainty from three different sources, either from a sandwich covariance matrix, a bootstrap, or from sampling importance resampling (SIR). The proposed approaches increased power compared with conventional NCA-based BE approaches, especially for the ophthalmic formulation scenarios, and were simultaneously able to adequately control type I error. In the rich sampling scenario considered for oral formulation, the weight-based model averaging method with SIR uncertainty provided controlled type I error, that was closest to the target of 5%. In sparse-sampling designs, especially the single sample ophthalmic scenarios, the type I error was best controlled by the bootstrap model selection method.