SIGNIFICANCE: The LC/ESI-MS/MS prazosin method was highly sensitive and selective. Bedside sampling reduced the orthostatic hypotension incidence and subject dropout rate.
METHODS: After sample preparation, prazosin and terazosin (IS) were detected on mass spectrometer operating in multiple reaction monitoring mode using positive ionization. Mobile phase flow rate was set at 0.40 mL/min with sample run time of 1.75 min. The bioanalytical method was validated as per EMEA and FDA guidelines. Bedside sampling was performed in bioequivalence study for the first 4 h after dosing. The three primary pharmacokinetic parameters, Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ and 90% confidence interval were determined.
RESULTS: The small injection volume of 1 μL minimized instrumentation contamination and prolonged the analytical column lifespan. Linearity was obtained between 0.5 and 30.0 ng/mL, with coefficient of determination, r2 ≥ 0.99. The mean extraction recovery of prazosin and IS was >92%, with precision value (CV, %) ≤ 10.3%. Only two orthostatic hypotension adverse events were reported. The two prazosin formulations were found to be bioequivalent.
CONCLUSION: The LC/ESI-MS/MS method has shown robustness and reliability exemplified by the incurred sample re-analysis result. Bedside sampling should be proposed for bioequivalence or pharmacokinetic studies of drugs demonstrating adverse event of orthostatic hypotension.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this trial, a total of 56 eligible subjects were randomly assigned to the fasting group and the postprandial group. The two groups were given 250 mg of the test and reference preparation, respectively. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) was applied to determine the plasma concentration of cefalexin. PhoenixWinNonlin software (V7.0) was used to calculate the pharmacokinetic parameters of cefalexin using the non-compartmental model (NCA), and the bioequivalence and safety results were calculated by SAS (V9.4) software.
RESULTS: The main pharmacokinetic parameters of the test and reference preparations were as follows, the fasting group: Cmax 12.59 ± 2.65 μg/mL, 12.72 ± 2.28 μg/mL; AUC0-8h 20.43 ± 3.47 h×μg/mL, 20.66 ± 3.38 h×μg/mL; AUC0-∞ 20.77 ± 3.53 h×μg/mL, 21.02 ± 3.45 h×μg/mL; the postprandial group: Cmax 5.25 ± 0.94 μg/mL, 5.23 ± 0.80 μg/mL; AUC0-10h 16.92 ± 2.03 h×μg/mL, 17.09 ± 2.31 h×μg/mL; AUC0-∞ 17.33 ± 2.09 h×μg/mL, 17.67 ± 2.45 h×μg/mL.
CONCLUSION: The 90% confidence intervals of geometric mean ratios of test preparation and reference preparation were calculated, and the 90% confidence intervals of geometric mean ratios of Cmax, AUC0-10h, and AUC0-∞ were within the 80.00% ~ 125.00% range in both groups. Both Cmax and AUC met the pre-determined criteria for assuming bioequivalence. The test and reference products were bioequivalent after administration under fasting as well as under fed conditions in healthy Chinese subjects. This study may suggest that successful generic versions of cefalexin not only guarantee the market supply of such drugs but can also improve the safety and effectiveness and quality controllability of cefalexin through a new process and a new drug composition ratio.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center, single-dose, open-label, randomized, 2-treatment, 2-sequence and 2- period crossover study with a washout period of 7 days. All 28 adult male subjects were required to fast for at least 10 hours prior to drug administration and they were given access to water ad libitum during this period. Thirty minutes prior to dosing, all subjects were served with a standardized high-fat and high-calorie breakfast with a total calorie of 1000 kcal which was in accordance to the EMA Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence. Subsequently, subjects were administered either the test or reference preparation with 240mL of plain water in the first trial period. During the second trial period, they received the alternate preparation. Plasma levels of glibenclamide and metformin were analysed separately using two different high performance liquid chromatography methods.
RESULTS: The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax of the test preparation over those of the reference preparation were 0.9693-1.0739, 0.9598- 1.0561 and 0.9220 - 1.0642 respectively. Throughout the study period, no serious drug reaction was observed. However, a total of 26 adverse events (AE)/side effects were reported, including 24 that were definitely related to the study drugs, namely giddiness (n=17), while diarrheoa (n=3), headache (n=2) and excessive hunger (n=2) were less commonly reported by the subjects.
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the test preparation is bioequivalent to the reference preparation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, 2-treatment, 2-period, 2-sequence, single dose, crossover with a washout period of 2 weeks, was conducted in 24 healthy Thai male volunteers. Blood samples were collected at 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72 and 96 h following drug administration. Plasma concentrations of risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone were determined using a validated LC-MS-MS method. The pharmacokinetic parameters of risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone were determined using a non-compartmental model.
RESULTS: The geometric means ratios (%) and 90% confidence interval (CI) of the test and reference products for the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters, Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-inf of risperidone were 104.49 % (92.79% - 117.66%), 100.96 % (92.15% - 110.61 %) and 97.99 % (90.72% - 105.85%). The 90% CI of geometric means ratios of the test and reference products for the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters, Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-inf of 9-hydroxyrisperidone were 97.00%, 96.97% and 97.49%.
CONCLUSIONS: The 90% CI for the geometric means ratios (test/reference) of the log-trasformed Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-inf of risperidone and its major active metabolite were within the bioequivalence acceptance criteria of 80% - 125% of the US-FDA.
METHODS: The intrasubject coefficient of variation was estimated from the residual mean square error obtained from analysis of variance of the parameters AUC0-infinity, Cmax and Cmax/AUC0-infinity after logarithmic transformation. The test power in the analyses of the above parameters was subsequently estimated using nomograms provided by Diletti et al. [1991].
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Thirty products covering 16 drugs were studied in which 22 were immediate-release (including one dispersible tablet) and 8 were sustained-release formulations. The intrasubject coefficient of variation for the parameter AUC0-infinity was smaller than Cmax, and hence considerably more studies were able to attain a power of greater than 80% using 12 volunteers for the AUC0-infinity, compared to the Cmax. However, the variability in the Cmax could be reduced by using the parameter Cmax/ AUC0-infinity, and thus, provide a more realistic estimation of sample size, since the latter reflects only the rate of absorption and not both the rate and extent as in the case of Cmax [Endrenyi et al. 1991].
RECENT FINDINGS: The quality of multiple generic DAAs has been shown to be bioequivalent to innovator formulations, with generic versions achieving high cure rates in real-world settings. Although published materials are limited, there is expanding experience with local pilot and national treatment programs which are largely being funded by national governments and other institutions.
SUMMARY: Countries and other public health stakeholders are recognizing the need to scale up HCV diagnosis and treatment programs using generic DAAs. However, local pilot or national treatment programs need to be massively expanded to eliminate HCV in high-burden areas.
METHODS: Xenical 120 mg capsules (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) were used as reference material. Generic products were from India, Malaysia, Argentina, Philippines, Uruguay, and Taiwan. Colour, melting temperature, crystalline form, particle size, capsule fill mass, active pharmaceutical ingredient content, amount of impurities, and dissolution were compared. Standard physical and chemical laboratory tests were those developed by Roche for Xenical.
RESULTS: All nine generic products failed the Xenical specifications in four or more tests, and two generic products failed in seven tests. A failure common to all generic products was the amount of impurities present, mostly due to different by-products, including side-chain homologues not present in Xenical. Some impurities were unidentified. Two generic products tested failed the dissolution test, one product formed a capsule-shaped agglomerate on storage and resulted in poor (=15%) dissolution. Six generic products were powder formulations.
CONCLUSIONS: All tested generic orlistat products were pharmaceutically inferior to Xenical. The high levels of impurities in generic orlistat products are a major safety and tolerability concern.