Chiral bioanalytical methods in bioequivalence studies of intravenous vs. oral formulations of ibuprofen.

According to the Ibuprofen Product-Specific Bioequivalence Guidance of the European Medicines Agency, achiral bioanalytical methods are considered acceptable for demonstration of bioequivalence of ibuprofen-containing products. The aim of this investigation is to compare the bioequivalence outcomes obtained with individual R and S ibuprofen enantiomers and the sum of both enantiomers from bioequivalence studies in which new intravenous ibuprofen products were compared with oral ibuprofen products. Bioequivalence was assessed for S and R enantiomers of ibuprofen and the sum of both enantiomers, which was calculated to represent the results that would have been obtained with an achiral assay. The infusion rates of 15, 20, and 30 minutes modify the maximum concentration (Cmax ) of the intravenous administrations. In contrast, the time when the maximum concentration is observed (Tmax ) was insensitive to detect differences in input rate within this range of infusion times. The eutomer S-ibuprofen is the least sensitive analyte to detect differences in input rate; therefore, the regulatory acceptance of achiral bioanalytical methods for ibuprofen bioequivalence studies is justified because the sum of both enantiomers is more discriminative than the chiral methods where only the eutomer is used for regulatory decisions.

Sex-by-formulation interaction in bioequivalence trials with transdermal patches.

PURPOSE: The existence of a sex-by-formulation interaction in bioequivalence studies implies that the bioequivalence results (i.e., the test/reference ratio of the pharmacokinetic parameters) obtained in one sex are not similar to those obtained in the other sex. Therefore, results obtained in studies including only males may not be representative of the results obtained in females and vice versa. The best evidence of the existence of a sex-by-formulation interaction has been obtained from a study conducted with transdermal patches. This observation might be caused by the different characteristics of the skin of males and females. The purpose of this work is to investigate the existence of a sex-by-formulation interaction in all bioequivalence studies of transdermal patches submitted to the Spanish Agency for Medicines between 2010 and 2016. METHODS: Only five different products (Buprenorphine-1, Fentantyl-1, Fentanyl-2, Rivastigmine-1 and Rivastigmine-2) that were submitted for registration included nine bioequivalence studies conducted in males and females. As single dose and multiple dose studies are required for registration of transdermal patches in the European Union, more than one study may be available to confirm the existence of a sex-by-formulation interaction. RESULTS: A sex-by-formulation interaction is suggested in six out of 27 datasets (22%), corresponding to two products, and it is statistically significant in three of them (11%). CONCLUSIONS: The sex-by-formulation interaction detected in some pharmacokinetic parameters of some studies is excluded when the study is repeated, which shows that these results are not reproducible. There is no evidence to require bioequivalence demonstration for transdermal patches in males and females separately.

Impact of Chiral Bioanalytical Methods on the Bioequivalence of Ibuprofen Products Containing Ibuprofen Lysinate and Ibuprofen Base.

The purpose was to assess the impact of the use of a chiral bioanalytical method on the conclusions of a bioequivalence study that compared two ibuprofen suspensions with different rates of absorption. A comparison of the conclusion of bioequivalence between a chiral method and an achiral approach was made. Plasma concentrations of R-ibuprofen and S-ibuprofen were determined using a chiral bioanalytical method; bioequivalence was tested for R-ibuprofen and for S-ibuprofen separately and for the sum of both enantiomers as an approach for an achiral bioanalytical method. The 90% confidence interval (90% CI) that would have been obtained with an achiral bioanalytical method (90% CI: Cmax: 117.69-134.46; AUC0 (t) : 104.75-114.45) would have precluded the conclusion of bioequivalence. This conclusion cannot be generalized to the active enantiomer (90% CI: Cmax : 103.36-118.38; AUC0 (t) : 96.52-103.12), for which bioequivalence can be concluded, and/or the distomer (90% CI: Cmax : 132.97-151.33; AUC0 (t) : 115.91-135.77) for which a larger difference was observed. Chiral bioanalytical methods should be required when 1) the enantiomers exhibit different pharmacodynamics and 2) the exposure (AUC or Cmax ) ratio of enantiomers is modified by a difference in the rate of absorption. Furthermore, the bioequivalence conclusion should be based on all enantiomers, since the distomer(s) might not be completely inert, in contrast to what is required in the current regulatory guidelines. In those cases where it is unknown if the ratio between enantiomers is modified by changing the rate of absorption, chiral bioanalytical methods should be employed unless enantiomers exhibit the same pharmacodynamics. Chirality 28:429-433, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Bioequivalence between generic tacrolimus products marketed in Spain by adjusted indirect comparison.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to investigate the relative bioavailability between the generic tacrolimus products that are presently authorized in Spain by adjusted indirect comparison. This was based on demonstration of bioequivalence with the reference product (Prograf, Astellas Pharma), which makes these generic tacrolimus products prescribable, switchable and therapeutically equivalent to the reference product; yet, according to Spanish legislation, only prescribers can switch tacrolimus-containing products. METHODS: Data from independent bioequivalence studies that compare each generic product with the reference product were combined by adjusted indirect comparisons to investigate the relative bioavailability between generic drug products, since there is no direct bioequivalence study comparing generics to each other. RESULTS: Eight generic tacrolimus products in the form of capsules are presently authorized in Spain, but only five are marketed. These eight products represent only three different generic product developments. One product is authorized with four different names/companies, while another is authorized under three different names/companies. The adjusted indirect comparisons between generic products show bioequivalence within the conventional 80-125 % confidence interval acceptance criteria for area under the curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax). CONCLUSION: Not only are the generic products bioequivalent with the reference product, but also with each other.

AMPA glutamate receptors and neuropathic pain.

Glutamate receptors are implicated in many actions in the central nervous system, as an excitatory amino acid, and one of the more relevant is its role in excitotoxicity. Apart from this, it also has a role as pro-nociceptive agent, so that antagonizing its actions could be of interest for developing new analgesic agents. Furthermore, between the analgesics agents, it is of outstanding interest the fact that there is no specific therapy against the neuropathic pain, and glutamate receptor subunits have elicited as new potential targets for this disturbance.

Investigation on the need of multiple dose bioequivalence studies for prolonged-release generic products.

In the European Union multiple dose bioequivalence studies are required for the approval of generic prolonged-release products, but they are not required by the US-FDA. In order to investigate if the multiple dose bioequivalence studies are necessary, the bioequivalence studies assessed in the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Care Products in the last 10 years were searched to find all reasons for rejection and identify those cases where the multiple dose study had failed to show bioequivalence and the single dose study had shown bioequivalence. In these latter cases, the plasma concentration at the end of the dosing interval (C(τ)) in the single dose study was assessed to investigate its sensitivity to predict non-bioequivalence in the steady state. The search identified six cases where the non-equivalence in the multiple dose study was not detected by the corresponding single dose study. C(τ) was not able to detect the difference in five cases and in general it was more variable than conventional metrics. In conclusion, the multiple dose bioequivalence study is necessary to ensure therapeutic equivalence and the use of C(τ) would be counterproductive, increasing the sample size of the studies without enough sensitivity to detect differences in the steady state.