Literature DB >> 22512898

Differences in the in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic profiles of once-daily modified-release methylphenidate formulations in Canada: examination of current bioequivalence criteria.

Megan J Shram1, Anne Marie Quinn, Nancy Chen, Janice Faulknor, Doanh Luong, Edward M Sellers, Laszlo Endrenyi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current Canadian bioequivalence criteria rely on rate and extent of drug exposure, that is, C(max) and AUC. In the case of complex modified-release formulations, these criteria may not address pharmacokinetic differences with potential therapeutic and tolerability implications.
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to characterize in vitro dissolution and in vivo pharmacokinetic profiles of three modified-release formulations of methylphenidate (MPH) marketed in Canada, two of which meet the criteria for assuming bioequivalence as defined by Health Canada: MPH extended-release (ER-C) and osmotic controlled-release oral-delivery-system (OROS-MPH).
METHODS: In vitro dissolution tests were performed using 54-mg OROS-MPH, 54-mg MPH ER-C, and 20-mg MPH sustained-release (SR) tablets. In vivo pharmacokinetics of single oral doses of 54 mg OROS-MPH, 54 mg MPH ER-C, and 60 mg MPH-SR were evaluated in an open-label, randomized, crossover study in healthy subjects. Plasma samples were collected up to 24 hours after administration of the drug.
RESULTS: In vitro dose-corrected release profiles of MPH ER-C and MPH-SR tablets were similar (<10% difference), whereas OROS-MPH exhibited a profile distinct from that of the other formulations. Twenty-four subjects completed the pharmacokinetic study and were included in the analyses. Analysis of C(max) and AUC of MPH showed that OROS-MPH and MPH ER-C met the criteria for assumed bioequivalence according to Health Canada guidelines. However, partial AUCs exhibited significant differences between the two formulations, which were supported by ratios of MPH concentrations over time. Comparison of MPH ER-C with MPH-SR (dose corrected) also satisfied bioequivalence criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetic data suggest that in vitro and in vivo profiles of OROS-MPH and MPH ER-C are distinct. However, using traditional criteria for bioequivalence, MPH ER-C would be assumed bioequivalent to both OROS-MPH and MPH-SR. Inclusion of partial AUCs as additional criteria could aid in ensuring therapeutic equivalence. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01118702.
Copyright © 2012. Published by EM Inc USA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22512898     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.02.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Ther        ISSN: 0149-2918            Impact factor:   3.393


  3 in total

Review 1.  Study on requirements of bioequivalence for registration of pharmaceutical products in USA, Europe and Canada.

Authors:  Upendra C Galgatte; Vijay R Jamdade; Pravin P Aute; Pravin D Chaudhari
Journal:  Saudi Pharm J       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 4.330

2.  Exposure-response analyses of blood pressure and heart rate changes for methylphenidate in healthy adults.

Authors:  Liang Li; Yaning Wang; Ramana S Uppoor; Mehul U Mehta; Tiffany Farchione; Mitchell V Mathis; Hao Zhu
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2017-02-18       Impact factor: 2.745

3.  The clinical impact of switching attention deficit hyperactivity disorder patients from OROS(®)-MPH to Novo-MPH ER-C(®): A paediatric practice review.

Authors:  Judy Pm van Stralen
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.253

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.