Bioequivalence evaluation of two dosage forms of olanzapine 10 mg formulations in healthy volunteers.

Two bioequivalence studies were carried out in healthy volunteers in order to compare the rate and extent of absorption of two dosage forms (film-coated tablet and orodispersible tablet) of oral olanzapine (CAS 132539-06-1) 10 mg test formulations and the respective brand formulations as reference. Twenty and twenty-six subjects were administered olanzapine film-coated tablet or orodispersible tablet of test and reference formulations in an open-label, randomised, fasting, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study. Blood samples were taken before and within 240 h after drug administration. Plasma concentrations were determined by LC/MS/MS. Log-transformed AUC and Cmax values were tested for bioequivalence based on the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference). tmax was analysed nonparametrically. The 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean values for the test/reference ratios for AUC(0-t) and Cmax were within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125%. It may be therefore concluded that the test formulations of olanzapine 10 mg film-coated tablet and orodispersible tablet are bioequivalent to the reference products and can be prescribed interchangeably.

Bioequivalence studies of film-coated tablet and chewable tablet generic formulations of montelukast in healthy volunteers.

Two studies were conducted in order to assess the bioequivalence of montelukast (CAS 151767-02-1) 10 mg film-coated tablet (FCT) and 5 mg chewable tablet (CT) test formulations in comparison with the original brands. Under fasting conditions, healthy male and female volunteers received one 10 mg FCT or 5 mg CT orally as a single dose of a test or reference formulation. Both studies were designed as open-label, randomized, two-period, two-sequence, crossover studies with a 7-day washout interval. Plasma samples were collected up to 24 h after drug administration and montelukast levels were determined by a validated LC/ MS/MS method. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using non-compartmental analysis and were statistically compared by analysis of variance for test and reference formulation. Bioequivalence between products was determined by calculating 90% confidence interval of the ratio test/reference of least-square means of logarithmically transformed Cmax and AUC0-t parameters. AUC0-infinity was also analysed to obtain additional information. The calculated 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of Cmax and AUC0-t parameters were 89.33-110.52 and 92.06-109.46, respectively, in the FCT study, and 91.58-101.86 and 92.15-98.83, respectively, in the CT study, which are all within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125%. Based on the results, it can be concluded that the evaluated test FCT and CT formulations are bioequivalent to their respective reference formulation in terms of rate and extent of absorption.