The Bioavailability and Pharmacokinetics of Silymarin SMEDDS Formulation Study in Healthy Thai Volunteers.

The present study aimed to determine the pharmacokinetic parameters and bioavailability of silymarin 140 mg SMEDDS formulation. An open-label, single-dose pharmacokinetic study was conducted. Twelve healthy volunteers were included in the study. After the volunteers had fasted overnight for 10 h, a single-dose generic silymarin 140 mg SMEDDS soft capsule was administered. Then 10 ml blood samples were taken at 0.0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0, 1.33, 1.67, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0, and 12.0 h. The plasma silybin concentrations were analyzed using validated LC-MS/MS. The pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed and calculated. The pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated after silymarin had been administered as a single capsule. The mean (range) Cmax was 812.43 (259.47-1505.47) ng/ml at 0.80 (0.25-1.67) h (tmax). The mean (range) AUC0-t and AUC0-inf were 658.80 (268.29-1045.01) ng.h/ml and 676.98 (274.10-1050.96) ng.h/ml, respectively. The mean ke and t1/2 were 0.5386 h-1 and 1.91 h, respectively. The silymarin SMEDDS formulation soft capsule showed rapid absorption and high oral bioavailability.

Bioequivalence study of the two 1.5 g cefoperazone and sulbactam IM injections in Thai healthy male volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a bioequivalence study of the two 1.5 g cefoperazone (1.0 g) and sulbactam (0.5 g) between Cefper and Sulperazon injections. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The present study was performed in 24 Thai healthy male volunteers who were intramuscularly injected a single dose of 1.5 g cefoperazone and sulbactam. A single dose, two periods, two sequences, double blind randomized crossover with a one-week washout period was used. Blood samples were collected before and at 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours after intramuscular injection and determined for cefoperazone and sulbactam plasma concentration by validated HPLC-UV methods. The pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed by noncompartmental analysis and the ANOVA was carried out. RESULTS: Tax of both cefoperazone and sulbactam for volunteers who were injected with either Cefper or Sulperazon injection were not significantly different (p > 0.05). The 90% confidence intervals of the log of ratio of either C(max) or AUC(last) or AUC(inf) of both cefoperazone and sulbactam between 1.5 g Cefper and Sulperazon injections were within the bioequivalence range of 0.80-1.25. CONCLUSION: The 1.5 g cefoperazone and sulbactam injection of Cefper and Sulperazone used in the present study are bioequivalent.