PURPOSE: To assess the bioequivalence of nadolol 40mg and 160mg tablets (Zenith-Goldline Pharmaceuticals) using Corgard 40mg and 160mg tablets (Bristol-Meyers Squibb) as reference products, to estimate the effect of food in the gastrointestinal tract on nadolol bioavailability, and to evaluate the effectiveness of standard pharmacokinetic metrics AUCt, AUC infinity, and Cmax in bioequivalence determinations. METHODS: Four bioequivalence studies were conducted as described in the FDA Guidance. Four additional studies of varying designs were conducted to establish bioequivalence of the 40mg tablet in terms of Cmax. RESULTS: Fasted and food-effect studies of the 160mg tablet clearly established bioequivalence and revealed an unexpected reduction in nadolol bioavailability from test and reference products in the presence of food. The food-effect study of the 40mg tablet (80mg dose) revealed a similar reduction in bioavailability from each product. Fasted studies of the 40mg tablet (80mg dose) established bioequivalence in terms of AUCt and AUC infinity. However, Cmax criteria proved extremely difficult to meet in the initial 40mg fasted study because of the large variability, leading to additional studies and ultimately requiring an unreasonable number of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Final results clearly established bioequivalence of both strengths and characterized an unexpected food effect which did not appear to be formulation-related. However, the Cmax of nadolol is only slightly sensitive to absorption rate and the relatively large variability of Cmax reduces its effectiveness as a bioequivalence metric. Findings suggest that bioequivalence criteria for highly variable drugs should be reconsidered.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To assess the bioequivalence of nadolol 40mg and 160mg tablets (Zenith-Goldline Pharmaceuticals) using Corgard 40mg and 160mg tablets (Bristol-Meyers Squibb) as reference products, to estimate the effect of food in the gastrointestinal tract on nadolol bioavailability, and to evaluate the effectiveness of standard pharmacokinetic metrics AUCt, AUC infinity, and Cmax in bioequivalence determinations. METHODS: Four bioequivalence studies were conducted as described in the FDA Guidance. Four additional studies of varying designs were conducted to establish bioequivalence of the 40mg tablet in terms of Cmax. RESULTS: Fasted and food-effect studies of the 160mg tablet clearly established bioequivalence and revealed an unexpected reduction in nadolol bioavailability from test and reference products in the presence of food. The food-effect study of the 40mg tablet (80mg dose) revealed a similar reduction in bioavailability from each product. Fasted studies of the 40mg tablet (80mg dose) established bioequivalence in terms of AUCt and AUC infinity. However, Cmax criteria proved extremely difficult to meet in the initial 40mg fasted study because of the large variability, leading to additional studies and ultimately requiring an unreasonable number of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Final results clearly established bioequivalence of both strengths and characterized an unexpected food effect which did not appear to be formulation-related. However, the Cmax of nadolol is only slightly sensitive to absorption rate and the relatively large variability of Cmax reduces its effectiveness as a bioequivalence metric. Findings suggest that bioequivalence criteria for highly variable drugs should be reconsidered.
Authors: J Dreyfuss; D L Griffith; S M Singhvi; J M Shaw; J J Ross; R A Vukovich; D A Willard Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 1979 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.126