加替沙星软胶囊健康志愿者体内药动学和生物等效性研究

目的:评价两种加替沙星制剂的人体生物等效性。方法:采用两制剂双周期交叉试验设计。18名健康志愿者分别单剂量口服受试制剂加替沙星软胶囊或参比制剂加替沙星片400 mg,采用高效液相色谱法(HPLC)测定血液中药物浓度。结果:受试制剂与参比制剂的Tmax分别为(1.85±0.60)和(2.08±0.65)h,Cmax分别为(3.556±0.904)和(3.575±0.908)μg.mL-1,t1/2分别为(7.76±1.27)和(7.91±1.26)h,AUC0~t分别为(29.71±7.10)和(32.00±7.67)μg.h.mL-1,AUC0~∞分别为(30.91±7.53)和(33.32±8.04)μg.h.mL-1。各药动学参数无显著性统计学差异(P>0.05),加替沙星软胶囊相对生物利用度F为(95.1±16.7)%。结论:2种加替沙星制剂具有生物等效性。     

石杉碱甲缓释片犬体内药动学研究

目的:测定石杉碱甲缓释片在杂种犬体内的药物动力学。方法:采用两制剂两周期交叉试验设计,6只杂种犬分别口服自制的石杉碱甲缓释片(2片,受试制剂)和市售石杉碱甲普通片(4片,参比制剂),各相当于石杉碱甲200μg。用HPLC法测定给药后不同时间血浆中的药物浓度,采用非隔室模型计算药动学参数。结果:受试制剂与参比制剂的t_(1/2)分别为(11.01±2.66)和(4.71±1.00)h;T_(max)分别为(9.33±1.63)和(3.00±0.92)h;C_(max)分别为(1.95±0.29)和(6.23±0.91)ng·mL~(-1),AUC_(0～t)分别为(28.29±2.03),(27.45±1.83)ng·h·mL~(-1)。受试制剂相对生物利用度为(103.06±3.72)%。结论:石杉碱甲缓释片呈现明显的缓释特征,在杂种犬体内吸收程度与参比制剂相当。     

HPLC测定人血浆中伊曲康唑的浓度及生物等效性研究

 目的建立HPLC测定伊曲康唑人血浆中浓度和评价伊曲康唑分散片的生物等效性。方法18名健康志愿者单剂量po分散片及胶囊2种伊曲康唑制剂(各含伊曲康唑0.1g)后测定不同时间血药浓度,采用Kromail C₁₈色谱柱(4.6mm×250mm,5μm),以乙腈-水(78∶22)为流动相,流速1.0mL·min^-1;检测波长263nm,检测器灵敏度0.01AUFS,20μL定量环进样。结果受试制剂伊曲康唑分散片和参比制剂伊曲康唑胶囊中伊曲康唑的主要药动学参数:达峰时间为(3.89±0.32)和(3.94±0.24)h,达峰时药物浓度为(1601.12±151.03)和(1678.74±200.37)μg·L^-1,消除相半衰期为(16.50±1.80)和(16.43±1.35)h,药-时曲线下面积AUC_0-72为(21194.89±2604.04)和(21795.72±2657.52)μg·h·L^-1,AUC_0-∞为(22418.87±2921.60)和(23060.62±2865.28)μg·h·L^-1。结论2种伊曲康唑制剂具有生物等效性。     

奥昔布宁渗透泵控释片在犬体内的单剂量和多剂量生物等效性研究

 目的研究自制奥昔布宁渗透泵控释片与市售普通片以及进口控释片在犬体内的单剂量和多剂量生物等效性。方法利用液相-质谱检测血药浓度,采用随机、交叉实验设计对自制控释片、进口控释片和市售普通片进行对照研究。结果单剂量给药后奥昔布宁自制控释片、进口控释片和市售普通片的峰浓度(ρ_max)、达峰时间(t_max)、血药浓度曲线下面积AUC分别为:(1.77±0.51),(1.67±0.27)和(5.89±2.04)μg·L^-1,(10.00±2.14),(10.50±2.07)和(0.84±0.23)h,(50.69±11.83),(48.63±6.33)和(22.74±7.06)μg·h·L^-1。多剂量给药后分别为:(2.39±0.55),(2.07±0.41)和(7.80±1.56)μg·L^-1,(6.12±1.55),(8.12±1.88)和(0.62±0.19)h,(44.92±10.63),(41.50±9.05)和(21.92±4.37)μg·h·L^-1,达稳态时血药浓度波动系数(DF)分别为(0.76±0.17),(0.52±0.17)和(2.55±0.39)。结论经方差分析和双单侧t检验,自制片与进口片和普通片生物等效。     

浅谈高变异药物的生物等效性研究

高变异药物的生物等效性研究是一个引人关注的现实课题，本文分析和介绍了高变异药物生物等效性研究的困难及其主要解决方法，希望能够有助于国内临床研究单位加强对高变异药物生物等效性研究问题的重视，从而更加科学可靠地评价高变异药物的生物等效性。     

盐酸二氧丙嗪颗粒的人体生物等效性研究

 目的研究盐酸二氧丙嗪颗粒的人体相对生物利用度。方法健康志愿者18名,随机双交叉单剂量口服盐酸二氧丙嗪实验和参比制剂,用高效液相色谱法测定血浆中盐酸二氧丙嗪的浓度。用DAS程序计算相对生物利用度和评价生物等效性。AUC_0-60,AUC_0-inf和ρ_max经方差分析和双单侧t检验,t_max进行秩和检验。结果单剂量口服实验制剂和参比制剂后血浆中的盐酸二氧丙嗪的ρ_max分别为(30.548±5.373)和(29.670±4.970)μg·L^-1;t_max分别为(2.833±1.225)和(2.593±1.798)h;AUC_0-60分别为(436.722±95.713)和(433.668±83.881)μg·h·L^-1;AUC_0-inf分别为(455.990±105.688)和(448.718±84.741)μg·h·L^-1。ρ_max,AUC_0-60,AUC_0-inf的90%可信区间分别为98.0%～107.9%,95.7%～105.0%,95.1%～107.0%。结论试验制剂对参比制剂的人体相对生物利用度为(101.3±15.2)%,试验制剂和参比制剂具有生物等效性。     

地奥司明片的生物等效性

目的研究地奥司明片的人体生物等效性。方法20名健康男性受试者采用2种制剂双周期交叉试验设计,分别单剂量口服1g地奥司明片试验制剂(T)和参比制剂(R)。采用HPLC紫外检测法测定血浆中地奥司明代谢物地奥亭浓度。结果T与R的主要药动学参数分别为:t_(max)(1.04±0.17)和(0.96±0.09)h;ρ_(max)(1150.995±176.231)和(1179.677±203.309)μg·L~(-1);AUC_(0→48)(8206.344±1845.794)和(8589.119±1517.918)μg·h·L~(-1);AUC_(0→∞)(10941.115±3191.603)和(11036.951±2 464.906)μg·h·L~(-1),t(1/2)(21.925±13.042)和(21.360±10.555)h。相对生物利用度:(97.05±21.748)%。药动学参数经多因素方差分析显示周期间与制剂间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),双单侧t检验表明接受T与R生物等效的假设,经计算90%置信区间均在规定值内。结论T与R具生物等效性。     

Bioequivalence evaluation of two brands of gliclazide 80 mg tablets (Glyzide & Diamicron)--in healthy human volunteers

A randomized, two-way, crossover, bioequivalence study in 24 fasting, healthy, male volunteers was conducted to compare two brands of gliclazide 80 mg tablets, Glyzide (Julphar, UAE) as test and Diamicron (Servier Industries, France) as reference product. The study was performed at the International Pharmaceutical Research Centre (IPRC), in joint venture with Speciality Hospital, Amman, Jordan. The drug was administered with 240 ml of 20% glucose solution after a 10 h overnight fasting. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 48 h. Plasma harvested from blood was analyzed for gliclazide by validated HPLC method. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC(0-t), AUC(0- proportional, variant), C(max), T(max), T(1/2), and elimination rate constant were determined from plasma concentrations of both formulations. Statistical modules (ANOVA and 90% confidence intervals) were applied to AUC(0-t), AUC(0- proportional, variant), and C(max) for bioequivalence evaluation of the two brands which revealed no significant difference between them, and 90% CI fell within US FDA accepted bioequivalence range of 80-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, Glyzide was judged bioequivalent to Diamicron.     

Bioequivalence evaluation of two brands of metformin 500 mg tablets (Dialon & Glucophage)--in healthy human volunteers

A randomized, two-way, crossover study was conducted in 24 fasting, healthy, male volunteers to compare the bioavailability of two brands of metformin 500 mg tablets; Dialon (Julphar, UAE) as test and Glucophage (Lipha Pharmaceutical Industries, France) as reference product. The study was performed at the International Pharmaceutical Research Centre (IPRC), in joint venture with Al-Mowasah Hospital, Amman, Jordan. The drug was administered with 240 ml of water after a 10-h overnight fasting on two treatment days separated by 1-week washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 30 h. Plasma harvested from blood was analyzed for metformin by validated HPLC method with UV-visible detector capable to detect metformin in the range of 0.05-5.0 microg/ml with limit of quantitation of 0.05 microg/ml. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC(0-t), AUC(0-proportional to), C(max), T(max), T(1/2), and lambda(Z) were determined from plasma concentrations of both formulations and found to be in good agreement with reported values. AUC(0-t), AUC(0-proportional to) and C(max) were tested for bioequivalence after log-transformation of data. No significant difference was found based on ANOVA; 90% confidence interval (97.9-110.8% for AUC(0-t), 97.4-110.7% for AUC(0-proportional to); 95.3-110.5% for C(max)) of test/reference ratio for these parameters were found within bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, it was concluded that Dialon is bioequivalent to Glucophage.     

The effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of nifedipine in two slow release formulations: pronounced lag-time after a high fat breakfast

AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of concomitant food intake on the bioavailability of two nifedipine containing modified release dosage forms for once daily administration. The clinical study was performed to investigate the in vivo relevance of pH-dependent differences in the in vitro release properties of the two dosage forms. METHODS: This was a randomized, open, 4-way crossover study in 24 healthy, male subjects. Following an overnight fast of 12 h single doses of Adalat OROS or Slofedipine XL were administered either in the fasted state or immediately after a high fat American breakfast. Nifedipine plasma concentrations in samples obtained until 48 h after drug administration were determined using a validated LC-MS/MS method. Calculation of pharmacokinetic parameters was conducted model-independently. The two dosage forms as well as the two administration conditions were compared by calculating point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the relevant pharmacokinetic parameters. In vitro dissolution tests were performed using a paddle apparatus 3 acc. USP, a pharmacopoeial dissolution system consisting of reciprocating cylinders in flat-bottomed glass vessels, with various buffer systems covering the entire physiological pH-range of the gastrointestinal tract. RESULTS: After fasted administration the extent of bioavailability of nifedipine as characterized by AUC(0,infinity) was slightly lower for Slofedipine XL compared with Adalat OROS with a point estimate of 82.3% primarily resulting from pronounced differences in nifedipine concentrations during the first 15 h after administration. Accordingly, maximum plasma concentrations were lower after administration of Slofedipine XL compared with Adalat OROS (point estimate: 84.3%). Under fed conditions the differences in bioavailability between the two products as characterized by the pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0,tn) and Cmax were greater than after fasting conditions with point estimates of 69.6% and 81.0%, respectively. However, most striking was a pronounced delay in nifedipine absorption observed under fed conditions after administration of Slofedipine XL which resulted in lag-times of more than 15 h in 15 out of 24 subjects. Owing to this lag-time under fed conditions the relative bioavailability of nifedipine from Slofedipine XL compared with Adalat OROS was only 28% over the intended dosing interval of 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: In this study a dosage form-dependent food interaction was observed which, under fed conditions, resulted in pronounced differences in the relative bioavailability of nifedipine between Slofedipine XL and Adalat OROS over the intended dosing interval of 24 h. The delay in nifedipine absorption when Slofedipine XL is administered after a high-fat breakfast may be explained by the formulation properties. Slofedipine XL is an erosive tablet with an acid resistant coating whereas Adalat OROS is designed with an osmotic push-pull system. Under fed conditions drug from the single unit enteric coated dosage form exhibits a delayed absorption probably due to an extensively prolonged gastric residence time which does not allow drug release, on the other hand the osmotically driven push-pull system is not sensitive to concomitant food intake. The observed phenomenon might be of therapeutic relevance. For example a change from taking Slofedipine XL in the fed to the fasted state might result in increased systemic concentrations of nifedipine.