Literature DB >> 24936102

Bioequivalence study of two formulations of enalapril, at a single oral dose of 20 mg (tablets): A randomized, two-way, open-label, crossover study in healthy volunteers.

Antonio Portolés1, Ana Terleira1, Susana Almeida2, Mar García-Arenillas1, Mari-Cruz Caturla3, August Filipe2, Emilio Vargas1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Enalapril maleate is the monoethyl ester prodrug of enalapril- at, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor indicated in the management of essential and renovascular hypertension, and in the treatment of congestive heart failure and in asymptomatic patients with left ventricular dysfunction and an ejection fraction of ≥35%. Enalapril has little pharmacologic activity until hydrolyzed in vivo to enalaprilat.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the bioavailability and tolerability of 2 commercial brands (test and reference formulations) of enalapril tablets (20 mg), described as the rate and extent of absorption of the active moiety, to assess their bioequivalence.
METHODS: This single-dose, randomized, 2-way, open-label, crossover study in healthy volunteers aged 18 to 40 years was conducted at the Clinical Pharmacology Study Unit, Hospital Clínico San Carlos (Madrid, Spain). Subjects were randomized to receive (under fasting conditions) either the test or reference formulation of enalapril (20-mg tablet) at study period 1 and the opposite formulation at study period 2. Study periods were separated by a washout period of at least 7 days. During each study period, 15 plasma extractions were made to determine enalapril and enalaprilat plasma concentrations and to calculate the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties (maximal plasma drug concentration [Cmax], time to Cmax [Tmax], area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC] to the last measurable concentration [AUCt], AUC from time 0 to infinity [AUC0-∞], mean residence time, and elimination half-life [tl2]) of both. Physical examination, subject interview, laboratory analyses, electrocardiogram, and blood pressure (BP) were used to assess tolerability.
RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects were included in the study (12 men, 12 women; mean [SD] age, 22.8 [2.2] years [range, 19-30 years]). Of these, 1 subject (4.2%) withdrew from the study for personal reasons; thus, PK and statistical analyses included results from 23 subjects. No statistically significant sequence or period effect was found. Tmax was not statistically different between the 2 formulations, and the 90% CI calculated for Tmax for the difference of the medians was within the predefined range. The 90% CIs of the logarithmically transformed concentration-derived parameters (Cmax AUCt, and AUC0-∞) also were within the predefined range; thus, the 2 formulations are considered bioequivalent. For both formulations, systolic and diastolic BPs showed significant reductions compared with baseline values (P < 0.05). Seven adverse effects were recorded, all of them transient and none of severe intensity.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study of 2 commercial brands (test and reference formulations) of enalapril in healthy subjects, designed and conducted under Good Clinical Practice guidelines, a similar rate and extent of absorption for both formulations were found to be bioequivalent. Both formulations produced a significant decrease in BP values and were generally well tolerated.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bioavailability; bioequivalence; blood pressure; clinical trial; enalapril; enalaprilat; healthy volunteers; pharmacokinetics

Year:  2004        PMID: 24936102      PMCID: PMC4052970          DOI: 10.1016/S0011-393X(04)90003-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Ther Res Clin Exp        ISSN: 0011-393X


  4 in total

1.  Kinetic-dynamic relations and individual responses to enalapril.

Authors:  R Donnelly; P A Meredith; H L Elliott; J L Reid
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 10.190

Review 2.  Enalapril. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in hypertension and congestive heart failure.

Authors:  P A Todd; R C Heel
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 9.546

3.  Bioequivalence study of two enalapril maleate tablet formulations in healthy male volunteers. Pharmacokinetic versus pharmacodynamic approach.

Authors:  W Ribeiro; M N Muscará; A R Martins; H Moreno; G B Mendes; G de Nucci
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 4.  Enalapril. A reappraisal of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in hypertension.

Authors:  P A Todd; K L Goa
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 9.546

  4 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Aaron S Kesselheim; Alexander S Misono; Joy L Lee; Margaret R Stedman; M Alan Brookhart; Niteesh K Choudhry; William H Shrank
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Bioequivalence of Two Formulations of a Single Oral Dose of 500-mg Azithromycin Granules: A Randomized, Open-Label, Two-Period Crossover Study in Healthy Han Chinese Volunteers.

Authors:  Jing Ren; Xue-Hua Jiang; Kejia Li; Chuanchuan Zhang; Chenrui Li; Ling Wang
Journal:  Curr Ther Res Clin Exp       Date:  2007-09

Review 3.  Generic versus brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular diseases.

Authors:  Lamberto Manzoli; Maria Elena Flacco; Stefania Boccia; Elvira D'Andrea; Nikola Panic; Carolina Marzuillo; Roberta Siliquini; Walter Ricciardi; Paolo Villari; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 8.082

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.