Bioequivalence evaluation of two brands of enalapril 20 mg tablets (Narapril and Renitec) in healthy human volunteers

The bioequivalence of two brands of enalapril 20 mg tablets was demonstrated in 24 healthy human volunteers after a single oral dose in a randomized cross-over study, conducted at IPRC, Amman, Jordan. Reference (Renitec, MSD, Netherlands) and test (Narapril, Julphar, UAE) products were administered to fasted male volunteers; blood samples were collected at specified time intervals, plasma separated and analysed for enalapril and its active metabolite (enalaprilat) using a validated LC-MS/MS method at Cartesius Analytical Unit, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, USP, Sao Paulo, Brazil. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity), Cmax, Tmax, T(1/2) and elimination rate constant were determined from plasma concentration-time profile for both formulations and were compared statistically to evaluate bioequivalence between the two brands, using the statistical modules recommended by FDA. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) did not show any significant difference between the two formulations and 90% confidence intervals fell within the acceptable range for bioequivalence. Based on these statistical inferences it was concluded that the two brands exhibited comparable pharmacokinetic profiles and that Julphar's Narapril is bioequivalent to Renitec of MSD, Netherlands.     

Bioequivalence evaluation of two brands of aceclofenac 100 mg tablets (Aceclofar and Bristaflam) in healthy human volunteers

A randomized, two-way, crossover, bioequivalence study in 24 fasting, healthy, male volunteers was conducted to compare two brands of aceclofenac 100 mg tablets, Aceclofar (Julphar, UAE) as test and Bristaflam (Bristol Myers Squibb, Egypt) as the reference product. The drug was administered with 240 ml of water after a 10 h overnight fast on two treatment days separated by 1 week washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 24 h. Plasma harvested from blood was analysed for aceclofenac by a validated HPLC method with UV-visible detection capable of detecting aceclofenac in the range 0.2-8.0 microg/ml with the limit of quantitation as 0.2 microg/ml. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC(0-t), AUC(0- infinity ), C(max), T(max), T(1/2), and lambda(Z) were determined from plasma concentrations for both formulations and found to be in good agreement with reported values. AUC(0-t), AUC(0- infinity), and C(max) were tested for bioequivalence after log-transformation of data. No significant difference was found based on ANOVA; 90% confidence interval (100.0%-106.4% for AUC(0-t), 100.2%-106.8% for AUC(0- infinity ); 83.3%-102.8% for C(max)) of test/reference ratio for these parameters were found to be within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80%-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, it was concluded that Aceclofar is bioequivalent to Bristaflam.     

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.     

Bioequivalence evaluation of two brands of lisinopril tablets (Lisotec and Zestril) in healthy human volunteers

The bioequivalence of two brands of lisinopril 20 mg tablets was demonstrated in 28 healthy human volunteers after a single oral dose in a randomized cross-over study, conducted at ACDIMA Center for Bioequivalence and Pharmaceutical Studies, Amman, Jordan. Reference (Zestril, AstraZeneca, UK) and test (Lisotec, Julphar, UAE) products were administered to fasting volunteers on 2 treatment days separated by a 2-week washout period; blood samples were collected at specified time intervals, and the plasma was separated and analysed for lisinopril using a validated LC-MS/MS method at ACDIMA Laboratory. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-t), AUC(0- proportional), C(MAX), T(MAX), T(1/2) and the elimination rate constant were determined from the plasma concentration-time profiles for both formulations and were compared statistically to evaluate bioequivalence between the two brands, using the statistical modules recommended by the FDA. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) did not show any significant difference between the two formulations and 90% confidence intervals fell within the acceptable range for bioequivalence. Based on these statistical inferences it was concluded that the two brands exhibited comparable pharmacokinetic profiles and that Julphar's Lisotec is bioequivalent to Zestril of AstraZeneca, UK.     

Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence evaluation of two simvastatin 40 mg tablets (Simvast and Zocor) in healthy human volunteers

The pharmacokinetics of two brands of simvastatin 40 mg tablets were compared in 24 healthy human volunteers after a single oral dose in a randomized cross-over study, conducted at IPRC, Amman, Jordan. Reference (Zocor, MSD, Netherlands) and test (Simvast, Julphar, UAE) products were administered to fasted volunteers; blood samples were collected at specified time intervals, plasma separated and analyzed for simvastatin and its active metabolite (beta-hydoxy acid) using a validated LC-MS/MS method at Cartesius Analytical Unit, Institute of Biomedical Sciences - USP, Sao Paulo, Brazil. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-t), AUC(0-variant), C(MAX), T(MAX), T(1/2) and elimination rate constant were determined from plasma concentration-time profile for both formulations and were compared statistically to evaluate bioequivalence between the two brands, using the statistical modules recommended by FDA. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) did not show any significant difference between the two formulations and 90% confidence intervals fell within the acceptable range for bioequivalence. Based on these statistical inferences it was concluded that the two brands exhibited comparable pharmacokinetic profiles and that Julphar's Simvast is bioequivalent to Zocor of MSD, Netherlands.     

Comparative bioavailability of two brands of atenolol 100 mg tablets (Tensotin and Tenormin) in healthy human volunteers

A bioequivalence study of two oral formulations of 100 mg atenolol was carried out in 24 healthy volunteers following a single dose, two-sequence, cross-over randomized design at the International Pharmaceutical Research Centre (IPRC), as a joint venture with Al-Mowasah Hospital, Amman, Jordan. The two formulations were Tensotin (Julphar, UAE) as test and Tenormin (Zeneca, UK) as reference product. Both test and reference tablets were administered with 240 ml of water to each subject after an overnight fast on 2 treatment days separated by a 1 week washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 36 h. Whole blood was analysed for atenolol by a sensitive, reproducible and accurate HPLC method with fluorescence detection capable of detecting atenolol in the range of 20-1600 ng/ml with a limit of quantitation of 20 ng/ml. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC0-t, AUC0-proportional to), Cmax, Tmax, T1/2 and lambdaZ were determined from blood concentrations of both formulations and found to be in good agreement with reported values. AUC0-t, AUC0-proportional to), and Cmax were tested for bioequivalence after log-transformation of data using ANOVA and 90% confidence interval and were found within the acceptable range of 80%-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, it was concluded that Tensotin is bioequivalent to Tenormin.     

Bioequivalence evaluation of two brands of fluoxetine 20 mg capsules (Flutin and Prozac) in healthy human volunteers

A bioequivalence study of two oral formulations of 20 mg fluoxetine was carried out in 24 healthy volunteers following a single dose, two-sequence, crossover randomized design at International Pharmaceutical Research Centre (IPRC), Amman, Jordan. The two formulations were Flutin capsules (Julphar, UAE) as test and Prozac capsules (Eli Lilly, UK) as reference product. Test and reference capsules were administered to each subject after an overnight fasting on two treatment days separated by a 28 day washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 360 h. Plasma harvested from blood was analysed for fluoxetine by a sensitive, reproducible and accurate LC-MS method. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity), C(max), T(max), T(1/2), and lambda(Z) were determined from plasma concentrations for both formulations and found to be in good agreement with reported values. AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity) and C(max) were tested for bioequivalence after log-transformation of data. No significant difference was found based on ANOVA; 90% confidence interval (94.60%-106.41% for AUC(0-t), 94.6%-108.14% for AUC(0-infinity); 91.88%-103.65% for C(max)) for test/reference ratio of these parameters were found within FDA acceptance range of 80%-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, it was concluded that Flutin is bioequivalent to Prozac and can be used interchangeably in medical practice.     

Bioequivalence assessment of Lovrak (Julphar, UAE) compared with Zovirax (Glaxo Wellcome, UK)--Two brands of Acyclovir--in healthy human volunteers

Two studies were performed to assess the relative bioavailability of Lovrak (Julphar, UAE) compared with Zovirax (Glaxo Wellcome, UK) at the International Pharmaceutical Research Center (IPRC), Amman, Jordan. One study involved acyclovir tablets and the other acyclovir suspension. Each study enrolled 24 volunteers and in both studies, after an overnight fasting, the two brands of acyclovir were administered as a single dose on 2 treatment days separated by 1 week washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 16 h. Plasma harvested from blood, was analysed for acyclovir by an HPLC method with UV detection. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC0-t, AUC0-infinity, Cmax, Tmax, T1/2 and Kelm were determined from plasma concentrations for both formulations and found to be in good agreement with the reported values. AUC0-t, AUC(0-proportional to), and Cmax were tested for bioequivalence after log-transformation of data. No significant difference was found based on ANOVA; 90% confidence intervals for the test/reference ratio of these parameters were found within the bioequivalence acceptance range 80%-125%. Based on these statistical inferences it was concluded that a Lovrak tablet is bioequivalent to a Zovirax tablet and that Lovrak suspension is bioequivalent to Zovirax suspension.     

Bioequivalence evaluation of two brands of cefuroxime 500 mg tablets (Cefuzime and Zinnat) in healthy human volunteers

A bioequivalence study of two oral formulations of 500 mg cefuroxime axetil was carried out in 24 healthy volunteers following a single dose, standard two-treatment cross-over design at the College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, working jointly with King Khalid University Hospital. The two formulations used were Cefuzime (Julphar, United Arab Emirates) as the test and Zinnat (Glaxo Wellcome, England) as the reference product. Both test and reference tablets were administered to each subject after an overnight fasting on two treatment days separated by a 1-week washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 8 h. Plasma harvested from blood was analysed for cefuroxime by a sensitive, reproducible and accurate high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) method. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity), C(max), T(max), T(1/2) and K(el) were determined from plasma concentrations of both formulations and found to be in good agreement with reported values. AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity) and C(max) were tested for bioequivalence after log-transformation of data. No significant difference was found based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA); 90% confidence interval for test/reference ratio of these parameters were found within bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, it was concluded that Cefuzime is bioequivalent to Zinnat.     

Bioequivalence evaluation of two brands of ketoconazole tablets (Onofin-K and Nizoral) in a healthy female Mexican population

A randomized, crossover study was conducted in 24 healthy female volunteers to compare the bioavailability of two brands of ketoconazole (200 mg) tablets; Onofin-K (Farmacéuticos Rayere S.A., Mexico) as the test and Nizoral (Janssen-Cilag, Mexico) as the reference products. The study was performed at the Clinical Pharmacology Research Center of the Hospital General de Mexico in Mexico City. Two tablets (400 mg) were administered as a single dose with 250 ml of water after a 12 h overnight fast on two treatment days separated by a 1 week washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 12 h. Plasma harvested was analysed for ketoconazole by a modified and validated HPLC method with UV detection in the range 400-14000 ng/ml, using 200 microl of plasma in a full-run time of 2.5 min. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-t), AUC(0-alpha), Cmax, Tmax and t(1/2) were determined from plasma concentrations of both formulations and the results discussed. AUC(0-t), AUC(0-alpha) and Cmax were tested for bioequivalence after log transformation of data, and no significant differences were found either in 90% classic confidence interval or in the Anderson and Hauck test (p < 0.05). Based on statistical analysis, it is concluded that Onofin-K is bioequivalent to Nizoral.     

环丙沙星片剂人体生物等效性研究

目的以上市环丙沙星片为对照,考察另一国产制剂的人体生物等效性。方法18名健康受试者随机交叉单剂量口服2种制剂后,采用高效液相色谱法测定血浆中的药物浓度。结果经3P97程序拟合处理,两者的体内过程符合一室模型。试验制剂及参比制剂的环丙沙星片剂实测平均血药峰浓度Cm ax分别(2.503±0.394)和(2.706±0.579)mg.L-1;实测平均达峰时间Tm ax分别为(1.343±0.402)和(1.075±0.379)h;试验制剂及参比制剂T12分别为(4.174±1.201)和(3.826±1.005)h;血药浓度-时间曲线下面积AUC0-tn平均值分别为(10.528±2.204)和(10.643±1.922)mg.L-1.h;AUC0-∞平均值分别为(11.409±2.139)和(11.558±2.160)mg.L-1.h;试验制剂及参比制剂比较,盐酸环丙沙星片剂的相对生物利用度F0-tn、F0-∞分别为(100.245±18.447)%、(100.470±20.108)%。结论试验与参比制剂的药动学参数差异均无显著性,两者具有生物等效性。     

塞克硝唑片剂健康人体生物等效性研究

目的:研究塞克硝唑试验片与参比片的生物利用度,并进行生物等效性评价。方法:20名健康男性志愿者单剂量口服塞克硝唑试验或参比制剂各2 g;采用反相高效液相色谱法测定其血药浓度。结果:人体药动学研究表明,口服塞克硝唑片的药-时曲线符合一级吸收的单房室模型。试验片与参比片的主要药代动力学参数:tmax分别为(2.30±1.06)和(2.28±1.10)h;Cmax分别为(49.63±6.35)和(46.17±4.24)mg/L;t1/2分别为(28.84±3.41)和(29.05±4.01)h;AUC0-96分别为(1832.06±180.15)和(1847.14±204.14)mg.h-1.L-1;相对生物利用度为(99.99±11.92)%。结论:塞克硝唑片两种制剂具有生物等效性。     

头孢羟氨苄咀嚼片的人体生物等效性

目的：评价头孢羟氨苄咀嚼片与参比片剂在人体内生物等效性。方法：采用随机交叉试验设计，20名健康男性受试者分别口服单剂量受试制剂与参比制剂500mg，HPLC法测定血浆中头孢羟氨苄的浓度，用DAS1．0统计软件计算药动学参数并进行生物等效性评价。结果：受试制剂与参比制剂的已。分别为（19．2±2．3）mg·L^-1和（18．4±2．7）mg·L^-1,tmax分别为（0．95±0．22）h和（1．3±0．4）h，t1/2分别为（1．78±0．14）h和（1．73±0．09）h，AUC（0→10）分别为（53．3±7．5）mg·h·L^-1和（54．0±7．4）mg·h·L^-1,AUC（0→∞）分别为（54．4±7．9）mg·h·L^-1和（55．1±7．7）mg·h·L^-1。受试制剂相对于参比制剂的生物利用度为（99．0±7．0）％。结论：两制剂具有生物等效性。     

国产替米沙坦片的人体生物等效性

目的　评价单剂量口服国产与进口替米沙坦片的人体药动学特性和生物等效性。方法　采用随机、交叉试验设计,2 0名男性健康志愿者单剂量口服80mg替米沙坦片,用HPLC -荧光检测法测定了体内替米沙坦的血药浓度。结果　口服国产和进口替米沙坦片的主要药动学参数分别为:T1/ 2 (2 0 9±6 5 4 )、(19 8±5 6 6 )h ;cmax(313 2±10 6 3)、(310 7±91 6 ) μg·L-1;tmax(0 98±0 35 )、(1 0 1±0 4 0 )h ;AUC0→48(14 98 0±5 72 2 )、(14 6 1 7±5 37 1) μg·h·L-1;AUC0→∞(1718 9±6 6 2 8)、(16 4 8 5±5 77 4 ) μg·h·L-1。经方差分析,国产与进口替米沙坦片主要药动学参数比较均无统计学意义。国产替米沙坦片的相对生物利用度为(10 2 8±13 4 ) % ,经双单侧t检验,2种制剂生物等效。结论　国产与进口替米沙坦片生物等效     

国产替米沙坦片健康人体生物等效性评价

目的:评价国产和进口替米沙坦片剂在健康人体的生物等效性.方法:采用高效液相色谱-荧光检测法测定18名健康志愿者单次、交叉口服替米沙坦片80 mg后血浆替米沙坦浓度.用3P97药动学软件进行药动学参数计算及生物等效性评价.结果:两种替米沙坦片的药-时曲线均符合二室模型,参比制剂、受试制剂的主要药动学参数为:Cmax分别为(931.0±367.7)μg·L-1和(894.2±421.7)μg·L-1;Tmax分别为(1.0±0.6)h和(1.4±0.8)h;T1/2β分别为(28.1±14.1)h和(27.0±10.8)h;AUC0-t分别为(4 085±2 313)μg·L-1·h和(3 920±2 199)μg·L-1·h;AUC0-∞分别为(4 751±2 742)μg·L-1·h和(4 352±2 569)μg·L-1·h.国产替米沙坦片的相对生物利用度F0-t为(97.5±15.6)%,F0-∞为(96.5±15.8)%.结论:方差分析和双单侧t检验证明两制剂具有生物等效性.     

盐酸二甲双胍片在中国健康人体的生物等效性

目的评价2种国产盐酸二甲双胍片(口服降糖药)在中国健康人体的生物等效性。方法 20名健康男性受试者随机交叉单剂量口服盐酸二甲双胍片试验药物和对照药物,各1.0 g。用高效液相色谱法测定血浆中盐酸二甲双胍的浓度,用DAS 2.0软件计算药代动力学参数,并对2种药物进行生物等效性评价。结果试验药物和对照药物的主要药代动力学参数如下:Cmax为(2.83±0.53),(2.57±0.57)mg.L-1;Tmax为(1.55±0.39),(1.63±0.36)h;t1/2为(3.70±1.76),(3.36±0.72)h;AUC0-24为(10.20±1.95),(9.71±2.56)mg.h.L-1。AUC0-24、AUC0-∞、Cmax的90%可信区间分别为99.1%～114.6%、99.1%～113.8%和100.6%～110.4%。试验药物相对于对照药物的生物利用度F为(108.3±20.5)%。结论试验药物和对照药物生物等效。     

Bioequivalence evaluation of two brands of meloxicam tablets (Promotion and Mobicox): pharmacokinetics in a healthy female Mexican population

We conducted a randomized, crossover study in 23 healthy young female volunteers to compare the bioavailability of two brands of meloxicam (7.5 mg) tablets and to obtain pharmacokinetic parameters of this molecule in Mexican population not reported previously. Two tablets (15 mg) were administered as a single dose on 2 treatment days separated by a 1-week washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 72 h. Plasma harvested was analyzed for meloxicam by a modified and validated high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method previously reported. Pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-t), AUC(0-alpha), C(max), T(max), k(e), MRT and t(1/2) were determined from plasma concentrations of both formulations, resulting in a C(max) 120% larger than and a T(max) 65% faster than those reported in other populations. AUC(0-t), AUC(0-alpha), and C(max) were statistically tested for bioequivalence after log transformation data in a non-balanced design, and no significant differences were found either in 90% classical confidence interval (90% CI) or in Schuirmann test (p < 0.05); thus, we concluded that bioequivalence existed between both formulations.     

帕罗西汀片在健康志愿者体内的生物等效性

目的评价2种国产盐酸帕罗西汀片剂的生物等效性。方法采用自身交叉试验方法。20名健康志愿者顿服40mg盐酸帕罗西汀片后,在规定时间内采血。以HPLC法测定血清药物浓度;以3P87药动学软件计算主要药动学参数,并评价2种国产帕罗西汀片之间的生物等效性。结果受试制剂和参比制剂的主要药动学参数tmax分别为(5.3±2.0)、(5.5±2.0)h;cmax分别为(31.0±12.1)(、30.2±12.3)μg.L-1;AUC0→t分别为(727.9±306.6)、(719.8±316.7)μg.h.L-1;T1/2分别为(19.7±7.3)(、19.2±7.0)h。2制剂间参数比较,P>0.05,受试制剂相对于参比制剂的相对生物利用度为(103.80±16.99)%。结论2种帕罗西汀片剂为生物等效制剂。     

左旋多巴片在健康人体的生物等效性

目的评价2种左旋多巴片(抗震颤麻痹药)在健康人体内的生物等效性。方法 18名健康男性受试者随机交叉给药,分别单次口服左旋多巴片的试验药物或对照药物250 mg,用高效液相色谱法测定左旋多巴的血药浓度,计算2种药物的药代动力学参数,并评价其生物等效性。结果口服左旋多巴片试验药物及对照药物的主要药代动力学参数:t1/2分别为(1.06±0.31),(1.02±0.40)h;Tmax分别为(0.53±0.39),(0.54±0.37)h;Cmax分别为(1.69±0.66),(1.61±0.68)μg.mL-1;AUC0-t分别为(2.00±0.64),(1.85±0.50)μg.h.mL-1;AUC0-∞分别为(2.10±0.64),(1.95±0.55)μg.h.mL-1。试验药物相对于对照药物的平均相对生物利用度F值:AUC0-t为(110.9±33.1)%,AUC0-∞为(111.1±32.4)%。结论 2种左旋多巴片生物等效。