PURPOSE: To compare etoposide pharmacokinetics following administration of high-dose etoposide and etoposide phosphate, a water-soluble prodrug of etoposide. Bioequivalence was assessed using a two-treatment randomized crossover design. METHODS:Ten patients with high-risk or relapsed lymphoma were treated with a sequential high-dose chemotherapy. They were randomized to receive either 3 x 400 mg/m2 etoposide or an equimolar amount of etoposide phosphate (as 1-h infusions on three consecutive days) in the first course and the alternative drug in the second course. Serial plasma and ultrafiltered plasma samples were collected and analysed for etoposide by a reversed-phase HPLC method with UV and electrochemical detection. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using a two-compartment model. Bioequivalence was assessed calculating the 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the ratios of the geometric means of AUC(0-infinity) and additionally of Cmax of etoposide derived from etoposide phosphate relative to etoposide in plasma and ultrafiltered plasma as point estimates (level of significance alpha < 0.05). RESULTS:Pharmacokinetic parameters of etoposide were comparable in both treatment arms except that terminal half-life was significantly shorter and apparent Vss in ultrafiltered plasma was significantly larger following administration of the prodrug. The point estimates for AUC(0-infinity) of etoposide derived from etoposide phosphate relative to etoposide were 102.9% and 88.4% for plasma and ultrafiltered plasma, respectively. The 90% CIs were in the range from 80% to 125% where bioequivalence can be assumed. The point estimates of Cmax on day 3 of chemotherapy were 96.5% and 81.7% in plasma and ultrafiltrate with the 90% CI in ultrafiltered plasma being out of the range from 80% to 125%. CONCLUSION: With respect to total drug exposure, represented by AUC(0-infinity), high-dose etoposide phosphate is bioequivalent to high-dose etoposide.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare etoposide pharmacokinetics following administration of high-dose etoposide and etoposide phosphate, a water-soluble prodrug of etoposide. Bioequivalence was assessed using a two-treatment randomized crossover design. METHODS: Ten patients with high-risk or relapsed lymphoma were treated with a sequential high-dose chemotherapy. They were randomized to receive either 3 x 400 mg/m2 etoposide or an equimolar amount of etoposide phosphate (as 1-h infusions on three consecutive days) in the first course and the alternative drug in the second course. Serial plasma and ultrafiltered plasma samples were collected and analysed for etoposide by a reversed-phase HPLC method with UV and electrochemical detection. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using a two-compartment model. Bioequivalence was assessed calculating the 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the ratios of the geometric means of AUC(0-infinity) and additionally of Cmax of etoposide derived from etoposide phosphate relative to etoposide in plasma and ultrafiltered plasma as point estimates (level of significance alpha < 0.05). RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic parameters of etoposide were comparable in both treatment arms except that terminal half-life was significantly shorter and apparent Vss in ultrafiltered plasma was significantly larger following administration of the prodrug. The point estimates for AUC(0-infinity) of etoposide derived from etoposide phosphate relative to etoposide were 102.9% and 88.4% for plasma and ultrafiltered plasma, respectively. The 90% CIs were in the range from 80% to 125% where bioequivalence can be assumed. The point estimates of Cmax on day 3 of chemotherapy were 96.5% and 81.7% in plasma and ultrafiltrate with the 90% CI in ultrafiltered plasma being out of the range from 80% to 125%. CONCLUSION: With respect to total drug exposure, represented by AUC(0-infinity), high-dose etoposide phosphate is bioequivalent to high-dose etoposide.
Authors: David I Sandberg; Kenneth M Crandall; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Kyle R Padgett; John Landrum; Darwin Babino; Carol K Petito; Juan Solano; Manuel Gonzalez-Brito; John W Kuluz Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 4.130