氟康唑胶囊在健康人体的药代动力学及生物等效性

目的建立人血浆氟康唑(抗真菌药)HPLC测定法,比较氟康唑2种制剂在健康志愿者体内的药代动力学和相对生物利用度。方法用随机开放交叉试验设计,20名健康志愿者分别单剂量口服试验和参比制剂氟康唑胶囊300mg,用高效液相色谱法法测定血药浓度,计算2制剂的药代动力学参数,并进行生物等效性评价。结果试验和参比制剂氟康唑胶囊的主要药代动力学参数t1/2分别为(31.20±3.98),(31.51±3.26)h;tmax分别为(2.83±0.37),(2.65±0.24)h;Cmax分别为(6.20±1.08),(6.11±1.01)μg·mL-1;AUC0-96分别为(208.42±21.77),(200.27±18.27)μg·h·mL-1;AUC0-∞分别为(234.00±24.56),(227.14±20.91)μg·h·mL-1。各药代动力学参数无显著性差异(P>0.05)。试验制剂氟康唑胶囊相对生物利用度F为(104.3±8.5)%。结论2制剂具有生物等效性。     

复方对乙酰氨基酚片在健康人体的药代动力学和相对生物利用度

目的研究复方对乙酰氨基酚片(解热镇痛药)在健康人体的药代动力学和相对生物利用度。方法24名健康受试者单剂量随机交叉口服2种国产复方对乙酰氨基酚片(试验与参比制剂)2片,用高效液相色谱法测定对乙酰氨基酚、异丙安替比林和咖啡因的血药浓度,用DAS软件拟合计算药代动力学参数,评价2种制剂生物等效性。结果药代动力学参数如下。对乙酰氨基酚:tmax分别为(0.81±0.48),(0.78±0.30)h;Cmax分别为(9.29±2.23),(8.76±1.83)μg·mL-1;AUC0-24分别为(31.49±6.83),(31.64±7.77)μg·h·mL-1。异丙安替比林:tmax分别为(0.90±0.33),(0.88±0.30)h;Cmax分别为(6.99±1.79),(7.00±1.60)μg·mL-1;AUC0-24分别为(21.92±9.43),(19.51±5.22)μg·h·mL-1。复方中2种成分相对生物利用度分别为(102.3±22.4)%,(112.8±37.4)%。结论试验与参比制剂具有生物等效性。     

劳拉西泮片在健康人体的药代动力学和生物等效性

目的研究劳拉西泮片(镇静药)在中国健康人体的药代动力学和生物等效性。方法健康志愿者20名,随机双交叉单剂量口服试验和参比制剂劳拉西泮片3mg;于服药后48h内,抽取静脉血;用高效液相色谱法测定血浆中劳拉西泮浓度;用3P97药代动力学程序计算相对生物利用度并评价2种制剂生物等效性。结果劳拉西泮的药代动力学参数Cmax分别为(35.77±6.84),(36.95±4.60)μg·L-1;tmax分别为(2.38±0.56),(2.23±0.48)h;t1/2(Ke)分别为(13.72±2.07),(13.83±2.49)h;AUC(0-48)分别为(542.19±84.33),(527.53±63.52)ng·h·mL-1;AUC(0-inf)分别为(605.22±93.52),(599.37±71.56)ng·h·mL-1。试验制剂与参比制剂的相对生物利用度F=(103.5±15.9)%。结论2种制剂具有生物等效性。     

烟酸缓释片的人体药代动力学及相对生物利用度

目的:研究烟酸缓释片的人体药代动力学及相对生物利用度.方法:30名男性健康志愿者采用随机交叉给药方案,单剂量口服1 500 mg国产烟酸缓释受试片或进口烟酸缓释参比片,反相离子对高效液相色谱法测定血药浓度,计算两者的药代动力学参数及相对生物利用度,并进行生物等效性评价.结果:单次口服1 500 mg烟酸缓释受试片和参比片的主要药代动力学参数AUC0～10h分别为(11.317±10.058)μg·ml-1·h和(12.030±11.081)μg·ml-1·h,AUC0～∞分别为(11.494±10.052)μg·ml-1·h和(12.334±11.110)μg·ml-1·h,Cmax分别为(6.58±5.28)μg·ml-1和(6.41±5.09)μg·ml-1,tmax分别为(4.90±0.67)h和(4.57±1.06)h,t1/2ke分别为(1.312±0.870)h和(1.467±0.907)h.结论:两种制剂具有生物等效性.     

尼莫地平缓释片在中国健康人体的生物等效性

目的 研究尼莫地平(抗缺血性脑损伤药)缓释片的相对生物利用度,并评价其生物等效性.方法 采用随机交叉试验设计,20名中国健康男性志愿者分别单次和多次口服尼莫地平缓释片受试制剂与参比制剂,用液相色谱一串联质谱法测定血浆中尼莫地平的血药浓度,计算药代动力学参数及相对生物利用度.结果 单次口服2种尼莫地平缓释片,受试制剂和参比制剂的主要药代动力学参数:tmax分别为(2.63±0.71),(2.88±0.79)h;Cmax分别为(13.18±5.21),(13.05±5.11)μg·L-1;t1/2分别为(3.15±0.79),(3.34 ±1.10)h;MRT0-1分别为(5.58±0.93),(5.78 ±1.06)h;MRT0-∞分别为(5.93±0.89),(6.24 ±1.14)h;AUC0-t分别为(73.84±28.09),(76.85±30.09)μg·h·L-1;AUC0-∞.分别为(75.24±28.18),(78.58±30.08)μg·h·L-1;F为(97.70±12.10)%.连续多次口服2种尼莫地平缓释片,给药第3 d血药浓度达稳态后,受试制剂和参比制剂主要药代动力学参数:tmax分别为(2.43±0.37),(2.40±0.38)h;C-max分别为(17.51±4.22),(16.52 ±4.16)μg·L-1;C-min分别为(3.58±1.92),(2.96 ±1.67)±μg·L-1;Cav分别为(7.29±1.97),(7.23±2.15)μg·L-1;t1/2分别为(4.10±1.42),(3.78±1.09)h;MRT0-t分别为(5.63 ±0.82),(5.71±0.92)h;MRT0-t分别为(6.65 ±1.47),(6.37±o.96)h;AUCss 分别为(87.44±23.69),(86.74±25.75)μg·h·L-1;DF分别为(1.99±0.72),(1.96±0.68);F为(102.20±10.70)%.结论 受试制剂与参比制剂具有生物等效性.     

氟康唑在健康人体的药物动力学和生物等效性

目的 研究氟康唑(抗真菌药)在健康人体的药物动力学及生物等效性.方法 20名健康志愿者随机双交叉、单剂量口服受试制剂和参比制剂150 mg,用高效液相色谱-串联质谱联法测定人血浆中氟康唑的浓度.使用DAS软件拟合计算药物动力学参数和相对生物利用度,评价两制剂的生物等效性.结果 受试制剂和参比制剂药物动力学参数:Cmax分别为(3.26±0.54),(3.17±0.41)μg·mL-1;tmax分别为(1.42±0.65),(1.62±0.75)h;t1/2分别为(29.75±4.89),(30.34±4.67)h;AUC0-120h分别为(131.4 ±23.4),(135.2±20.6)μg·mL-1·h;AUC0-∞分别为(140.5±26.3),(145.0±23.6)μg·mL-1·h.受试制剂相对于参比制剂的生物利用度为(97.2±7.6)%.结论 2种制剂具有生物等效性.     

头孢丙烯片在健康人体的药代动力学和生物等效性

目的研究2种国产头孢丙烯片(头孢类抗生素)在健康人体内的药代动力学过程,并评价这2种制剂的生物等效性。方法20例健康成年男性受试者随机分组,自身对照,单次口服头孢丙烯片1 g后,用高效液相色谱法测定头孢丙烯顺式及反式异构体的血浆浓度,用非房室模型法计算各主要药代动力学参数,并进行方差分析和生物等效性评价。结果顺式异构体:参比制剂与受试制剂的tm ax分别为(2.4±1.0),(2.3±0.8)h;Cm ax分别为(15.4±3.5),(14.8±2.8)μg.mL-1;t1/2分别为(1.4±0.1),(1.4±0.1)h;MRT分别为(3.4±0.6),(3.4±0.6)h;AUC0-t分别为(61.2±10.6),(60.3±11.4)μg.h.mL-1;AUC0-∞分别为(64.7±11.2),(64.5±11.7)μg.h.mL-1;受试制剂相对于参比制剂的生物利用度为(99.3±14.5)%。反式异构体:参比制剂与受试制剂的tm ax分别为(2.4±0.9),(2.4±0.9)h;Cm ax分别为(1.6±0.3),(1.5±0.3)μg.mL-1;t1/2分别为(1.2±0.2),(1.5±0.6...     

洛伐他汀胶囊在健康人体的生物等效性研究

目的:考察两种洛伐他汀胶囊在健康人体的生物等效性.方法:20名健康男性志愿者单剂量口服试验制剂或参比制剂,采用LC/MS/MS法测定全血中药物浓度,用DAS2.1软件计算药代动力学参数.结果:试验制剂和参比制剂的主要药代动力学参数如下:t1/2分别为(4.67±2.34),(5.30±2.62)h;tmax分别为(1.90±0.50),(2.13±0.39)h;Cmax分别为(8.37±0.84),(8.29±1.00)ng·mL-1;AUC0-t分别为(32.25±6.49),(32.71±7.59)ng.h·mL-1;AUC0-∞分别为(33.62±6.94),(34.71±8.62)ng·h·mL-1.试验制剂的相对生物利用度F=(99.60±8.30)%.结论:受试制剂和参比制剂具有生物等效性.     

丙戊酸钠缓释片的人体生物等效性研究

目的 评价两种丙戊酸钠缓释片的生物等效性.方法 采用开放,随机交叉试验设计,20名健康男性志愿者单剂量口服丙戊酸钠缓释片参比制剂和受试制剂各1000mg,用高效液相-荧光色谱法测定不同时间血清中丙戊酸钠的浓度并计算其主要的药代动力学参数.结果 单剂量口服两种丙戊酸钠缓释片主要药代动力学参数:Cmax分别为115.34±12.24和109.34±11.84μg·mL-1;tmax分别为0.91±0.74和0.98±0.68h;AUC0-∞分别为1.92±0.58和1.91±0.64mg·h·mL-1;利用方差分析及双单侧t检验对两种丙戊酸钠缓释片的生物等效性进行评价.结论 两种厂家生产的丙戊酸钠缓释片具有生物等效性.     

格列喹酮片在健康人体生物等效性研究

目的:研究两种格列喹酮片在健康人体内的药动学特征,并评价两种制剂间的生物等效性。方法:18名健康男性志愿受试者随机交叉单剂量口服试验制剂和参比制剂60 mg,清洗期1周,采用HPLC法测定血清中格列喹酮浓度。结果:受试者口服试验制剂和参比制剂后,主要药代动力学参数如下:t1/2分别为(4.78±1.87),(4.19±1.57)h,tmax分别为(3.06±1.08),(3.28±1.49)h,Cmax分别为(0.87±0.35),(0.90±0.33)μg.mL-1,AUC0-t分别为(4.35±1.66),(4.62±1.23)μg.h.mL-1,AUC0-∞分别为(4.98±1.72),(5.19±1.42)μg.h.mL-1。试验制剂的相对生物利用度AUC0-t为(95.8±34.1)%,AUC0-∞为(97.7±29.4)%。结论:两种格列喹酮片为生物等效制剂。     

精氨洛芬片剂与颗粒剂在健康受试者体内的生物等效性

目的 研究精氨洛芬(非甾体抗炎药)片剂与颗粒剂在中国健康志愿者体内的生物等效性.方法 20名健康男性受试者分别随机交叉口服精氨洛芬片(试验制剂)及其颗粒(参比制剂)0.4 g,用HPLC-UV法测定给药后不同时间点的血浆布洛芬浓度;用DAS程序对试验数据进行统计处理,评价2种制剂的生物等效性.结果 试验制剂和参比制剂的药代动力学参数如下:Cmax分别为(50.60±9.12)、(50.53±8.58)nag·L-1,tmax分别为(0.51±0.20)、(0.34±0.11)h,AUC0～t分别为(118.63±21.42)、(115.75±20.23)mg·h·L-1,AUC0～∞分别为(121.18±22.18)、(118.55±21.83)mg·h·L-1.试验制剂与参比制剂AUC0-t之比和Cmax之比的90%可信区间分别为97.5%～107.6%和93.3%～107.2%.结论 试验制剂和参比制剂吸收程度等效(AUC0-t,AUC0-∞和Cmax均生物等效性);但吸收速度不等效(tmax不等效).     

厄贝沙坦氢氯噻嗪胶囊在健康人体的生物等效性

目的研究厄贝沙坦氢氯噻嗪胶囊(抗高血压药)在健康人体的生物等效性。方法 22名健康志愿者,随机双交叉单剂量口服厄贝沙坦氢氯噻嗪胶囊(试验制剂)和厄贝沙坦氢氯噻嗪片(参比制剂),剂量为厄贝沙坦300 mg、氢氯噻嗪25 mg。分别于服药后36 h内,多点抽取静脉血,用高效液相色谱法分别测定血浆中厄贝沙坦和氢氯噻嗪的浓度。用DAS程序计算相对生物利用度,并评价2种制剂生物等效性。结果单剂量口服厄贝沙坦氢氯噻嗪胶囊和片剂后的药代动力学参数,厄贝沙坦:Cmax分别为(2.61±0.62)和(2.57±0.46)mg·L-1;AUC0-36分别为(15.14±3.43)和(15.39±3.91)mg·h·L-1;AUC0-∞分别为(16.37±3.42)和(16.80±4.28)mg·h·L-1;相对生物利用度为(100.75±19.42)%。氢氯噻嗪:Cmax分别为(162.51±27.55)和(168.18±25.71)μg·L-1;AUC0-36分别为(1115.41±147.34)和(1144.15±171.62)μg·h·L-1;AUC0-∞分别为(1212.68±160.77)和(1252.75±211.2...     

Bioequivalence evaluation of lansoprazole 30-mg capsules (Lanfast and Lanzor) in healthy volunteers.

The bioequivalence of two lansoprazole 30-mg capsules was determined in healthy human, adult volunteers after a single dose in a randomized cross-over study. The study was conducted at Pharmaconsult, Flemington Pharmaceutical Corp., New Jersey, USA. Reference (Lanzor, Laboratoires Houde, Paris, France) and test (Lanfast, Julphar, UAE) were administered to volunteers with 240 ml water after overnight fasting. Blood samples were collected at specified time intervals, plasma was separated and analyzed for lansoprazole using a validated HPLC method. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-t), AUC(0-~), C(max), T(max), T(1/2) and elimination rate constant were determined from plasma concentration-time profile of both formulations and found to be in good agreement with previously reported values. The calculated pharmacokinetic parameters were compared statistically to evaluate bioequivalence between the two brands, using the statistical modules recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) did not show any significant difference between the two formulations and 90% confidence intervals fell within the acceptable range (80-120%) for bioequivalence. Based on these statistical inferences it was concluded that the two formulations exhibited comparable pharmacokinetic profiles and that Julphar's Lanfast is bioequivalent to Lanzor of Lab. Houde.     

吗替麦考酚酯胶囊人体生物等效性研究

目的:研究吗替麦考酚酯胶囊在健康人体内的生物等效性。方法:24名受试者单剂量、交叉口服吗替麦考酚酯胶囊受试制剂或参比制剂1000mg后,采用高效液相色谱法,二极管阵列检测器和荧光检测器串联检测霉酚酸(MPA)及霉酚酸葡糖醛酸酯(MPAG)的血药浓度,以DAS2.0.1程序计算药动学参数和生物等效性数据。结果:受试制剂与参比制剂的MPA,其Cmax分别为(45.728±16.006)、(49.323±16.098)μg·mL-1,tmax分别为(0.610±0.242)、(0.534±0.260)h,t1/2分别为(14.214±6.308)、(12.707±6.575)h,AUC0～60分别为(84.697±19.917)、(84.312±18.639)μg.h.mL-1,AUC0～∞分别为(89.750±20.728)、(102.995±68.151)μg.h.mL-1;受试制剂与参比制剂的MPAG,其Cmax分别为(54.917±14.715)、(53.916±10.703)μg.mL-1,tmax分别为(1.521±0.454)、(1.396±0.294)h,t1/2分别为(13.542±6.685)、(11.885±3.130)h,AUC0～60分别为(486.686±145.059)、(446.812±100.383)μg.h.mL-1,AUC0～∞分别为(524.357±127.385)、(471.725±101.297)μg.h.mL-1;MPA的相对生物利度为(100.39±16.9)%,MPAG的相对生物利度为(106.89±18.6)%。结论:吗替麦考酚酯胶囊受试制剂与参比制剂具有生物等效性。     

Formulation and comparative bioavailability of 2 ciprofloxacin sustained release tablets

BACKGROUND AND THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The aim of this study is to formulate and evaluate the quality of ciprofloxacin (CAS number: 85721-33-1) sustained release tablet (Ciprocare?XR) 1 000 mg ciprofloxacin (test formulation) by comparing its pharmacokinetic parameters with Cipro?XR sustained release tablet (reference formulation). For this purpose ciprofloxacin SR tablets were developed using the 2-layer method. To assess the quality of the produced sustained release tablets a randomized, 2-way, crossover, bioequivalence study was performed in 24 healthy, male volunteers. The selected Middle Eastern volunteers were divided into 2 groups of 12 subjects. One group was treated with the reference formulation and the other one with the test formulation, with a cross-over after a drug washout period of 7 days. Blood samples were collected at fixed time intervals and Ciprofloxacin concentrations were determined by a validated HPLC assay method. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC0-48, AUC0-∞, Cmax, Tmax, Ke and T1/2 were determined for both sustained release tablets and were compared statistically to evaluate the bioequivalence between the 2 formulations of ciprofloxacin, using the statistical model recommended by the FDA. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) did not show any significant difference between the 2 formulations and 90% confidence intervals (CI) fell within the acceptable range for bioequivalence. According to the obtained results it was concluded that the test and reference formulations are bioequivalent, since they exhibit comparable pharmacokinetic parameters.     

Comparative pharmacokinetics of two tablet formulations of Losartan: bioequivalence assessment

The pharmacokinetic profiles of two brands of losartan 50 mg tablets were compared in 24 healthy adult volunteers after a single oral dose in a randomized cross-over study. The study was conducted at the ACDIMA Center for Bioequivalence & Pharmaceutical Studies, Amman, Jordan. The reference (Cozaar, MSD, The Netherlands) and test (Blosart, Julphar, UAE) products were administered to fasting volunteers. Blood samples were collected at specified time intervals, and the plasma separated and analysed for losartan and its active metabolite (losartan carboxylic acid) using a validated HPLC method with fluorescence detection. Pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-t), AUC(0-alpha), C(max), T(max), T(1/2), elimination rate constant, MRT, Cl/F and Vss/F were determined from plasma concentration-time profiles of both formulations and found to be in good agreement with reported values. Three parameters (AUC(0-t), AUC(0-alpha), and C(max)) were compared statistically to evaluate the bioequivalence between the two brands, using statistical modules recommended by the FDA. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) did not show any significant difference between the two formulations and 90% confidence intervals fell within the acceptable range (80%-125%) for bioequivalence. Based on these statistical inferences it was concluded that the two formulations exhibited comparable pharmacokinetic profiles and that Julphar's Blosart is bioequivalent to Cozaar of MSD, The Netherlands.     

苦参素片与苦参素胶囊的药动学和生物等效性研究

目的:比较苦参素片与苦参素胶囊的人体药动学参数,评价二者的生物等效性。方法:将18名健康志愿者分为2组,分别空腹口服苦参素片(受试制剂)或苦参素胶囊(参比制剂)各600mg。于给药前、后采用高效液相色谱法测定氧化苦参碱血药浓度,计算2种制剂的药动学参数(以氧化苦参碱计)。结果:苦参素片、苦参素胶囊的药动学参数t1/2分别为(1.51±0.62)、(1.53±0.54)h,tmax分别为(1.35±0.13)、(1.29±0.13)h,Cmax分别为(730.86±101.13)、(729.58±74.35)ng.mL-1,AUC0～8分别为(2 579.1±244.4)、(2 505.7±223.5)ng.h.mL-1,AUC0～∞分别为(2 754.1±331.8)、(2 659.4±253.5)ng.h.mL-1。苦参素片的相对生物利用度为(103.7±13.3)%。结论:苦参素片、苦参素胶囊的主要药动学参数无显著差异,个体间、周期间和剂型间符合生物等效的假设,二者是生物等效制剂。     

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.     

进口与国产利培酮薄膜衣片在健康志愿者的生物等效性

目的 研究利培酮薄膜衣片(抗精神分裂症药)在健康志愿者的药代动力学和生物等效性.方法 23名健康男性志愿者随机交叉、单剂量口服受试制剂(进口)和参比制剂(国产)2 mg后,用HPLC-MS/MS测定血浆中利培酮及9-羟基利培酮浓度,计算主要药代动力学参数,评价2种制剂的生物等效性.结果 受试制剂和参比制剂的主要药代动力学参数,利培酮:AUC0～t分别为(94.76±82.93)和(103.05±117.71)ng·h·mL-1;AUC0～1分别为(96.72±84.52)和(105.19±119.36)ng·h·mL0-1;Cmax分别为(15.91±5.63)和(16.21±11.56)ng·mL-1;tmax分别为(1.14±0.73)和(1.15±0.54)h;t1/2分别为(7.32±5.94)和(7.44±6.50)h,受试制剂的相对生物利用度为(106.68±40.21)%.9-羟基利培酮:AUC0-96h分别为(268.56±85.20)和(279.64 ±117.86)ng·h·mL-1;AUC0-∞分别为(282.74±87.46)和(294.28±120.32)ng·h·mL-1;Cmax分别为(10.84±4.69)和(11.11±4.80)ng·mL-1;tmax分别为(3.35±2.32)和(4.48±2.76)h;t1/2分别为(23.18±3.26)和(23.12±4.31)h,受试制剂的相对生物利用度为(101.37±27.23)%.结论 2种制剂具有生物等效性.     

Comparative bioavailability of two immediate-release tablets of lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide in healthy volunteers

AIM: Two formulations of lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide (20 mg/12.5 mg) were evaluated for bioequivalence after single dosing in healthy volunteers. METHODS: The study was conducted according to an open, randomized, 2-period crossover design with a 2-week washout interval between doses. Twenty-four volunteers participated and all completed the study successfully. Lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide were determined in plasma by HPLC. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity), Cmax and Cmax/AUC(0-infinity) were tested for bioequivalence after logarithmic transformation of data and ratios of tmax were evaluated non-parametrically. RESULTS: For lisinopril, the parametric analysis revealed the following test/reference ratios and their confidence intervals (90% CI): 1.01 (0.84-1.22) for AUC(0-t), 0.98 (0.81-1.19) for AUC(0-infinity), 1.02 (0.83-1.25) for Cmax and 1.03 (0.99-1.08) for Cmax/AUC(0-infinity). The 90% CI for tmax was 0.94-1.07. All parameters showed bioequivalence between both formulations. As for hydrochlorothiazide, test/reference ratios and their confidence intervals (90% CI) were: 1.05 (0.95-1.17), 1.02 (0.93-1.12) for AUC(0-infinity), 0.99 (0.89-1.07) for Cmax and 0.97 (0.90-1.04) for Cmax/AUC(0-infinity). The 90% CI for tmax was 1.00-1.41. All parameters showed bioequivalence between both formulations except for tmax. A discrete fall in both systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure was observed after drug administration. The time course of both parameters was similar for the 2 formulations. Heart rates also followed a similar time profile. CONCLUSIONS: The bioequivalence of the 2 formulations of lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide was demonstrated.