Relative bioavailability of a newly developed 5-mg levomethadone hydrochloride IR tablet (L-Polamidon® 5 mg tablets) in comparison with the 5-mg levomethadone hydrochloride oral solution (L-Polamidon® solution for substitution) as reference product.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the relative bioavailability (rBA) between two p.o. 5-mg levomethadone hydrochloride formulations, i.e., L-Polamidon® 5 mg tablets (test) vs. L-Polamidon® solution for substitution (reference). To assess the safety and tolerability of both formulations. SUBJECT AND METHODS: A total of 33 healthy male subjects, aged 29 ± 6 years (BMI: 23.9 ± 2.5 kg/m2) completed this single center, open-label, randomized, 2-period cross-over study with single dose administrations under fasting conditions and coadministration with naltrexone for safety reasons. Administrations of both investigational products were separated by a washout period of at least 2 weeks, i.e., 13 treatmentfree days. The total dose for each subject was 2 x 5 mg resulting in 10 mg levomethadone hydrochloride. For pharmacokinetic evaluation, blood samples were withdrawn until 72 hours postdose. A validated non-stereoselective liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy method (LC-MS/MS) was applied for the determination of levomethadone in plasma. The lower limit of quantitation was 0.100 ng/mL. Adverse events were descriptively analyzed in the study population. RESULTS: The geometric means of the parameters related with the extent of total exposure of levomethadone, i.e., AUC(0-tlast) and AUC(0-∞), were 244.422 ng x h/mL and 332.999 ng x h/mL for test and 246.837 ng x h/mL and 329.467 ng×h/mL for reference, respectively. The geometric means of the peak exposure for levomethadone, i.e., Cmax, were 8.923 ng/mL for test and 8.635 ng/mL for reference. The point estimates (PEs) of the Test/Reference (T/R) adjusted geometric mean ratios of AUC(0-last), AUC(0-∞), and C(max) were 99.20%, 101.42%, and 104.11%, respectively, and all of them showed 90%-confidence intervals (CIs) within the range of 80.00 - 125.00% as suggested by regulatory requirements for bioequivalence assessment In total, 21 subjects experienced 55 AEs during the study, the most frequently reported AE, i.e., headache, accounted for 13 out of the total 55 AEs (23.6%) and no AEs of severe intensity were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Bioequivalence could be demonstrated in terms of rate and extent of absorption after administration of test and reference products under naltrexone protection. Concerning the safety evaluation, no negative implications on the possible use of the test formulation could be determined.

The use of reconstructed human epidermis for skin absorption testing: Results of the validation study.

A formal validation study was performed, in order to investigate whether the commercially-available reconstructed human epidermis (RHE) models, EPISKIN, EpiDerm and SkinEthic, are suitable for in vitro skin absorption testing. The skin types currently recommended in the OECD Test Guideline 428, namely, ex vivo human epidermis and pig skin, were used as references. Based on the promising outcome of the prevalidation study, the panel of test substances was enlarged to nine substances, covering a wider spectrum of physicochemical properties. The substances were tested under both infinite-dose and finite-dose conditions, in ten laboratories, under strictly controlled conditions. The data were subjected to independent statistical analyses. Intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory variability contributed almost equally to the total variability, which was in the same range as that in preceding studies. In general, permeation of the RHE models exceeded that of human epidermis and pig skin (the SkinEthic RHE was found to be the most permeable), yet the ranking of substance permeation through the three tested RHE models and the pig skin reflected the permeation through human epidermis. In addition, both infinite-dose and finite-dose experiments are feasible with RHE models. The RHE models did not show the expected significantly better reproducibility, as compared to excised skin, despite a tendency toward lower variability of the data. Importantly, however, the permeation data showed a sufficient correlation between all the preparations examined. Thus, the RHE models, EPISKIN, EpiDerm and SkinEthic, are appropriate alternatives to human and pig skin, for the in vitro assessment of the permeation and penetration of substances when applied as aqueous solutions.

Reconstructed human epidermis for skin absorption testing: results of the German prevalidation study.

Exposure to chemicals absorbed by the skin can threaten human health. In order to standardise the predictive testing of percutaneous absorption for regulatory purposes, the OECD adopted guideline 428, which describes methods for assessing absorption by using human and animal skin. In this study, a protocol based on the OECD principles was developed and prevalidated by using reconstructed human epidermis (RHE). The permeation of the OECD standard compounds, caffeine and testosterone, through commercially available RHE models was compared to that of human epidermis and animal skin. In comparison to human epidermis, the permeation of the chemicals was overestimated when using RHE. The following ranking of the permeation coefficients for testosterone was obtained: SkinEthic > EpiDerm, EPISKIN > human epidermis, bovine udder skin, pig skin. The ranking for caffeine was: SkinEthic, EPISKIN > bovine udder skin, EpiDerm, pig skin, human epidermis. The inter-laboratory and intra-laboratory reproducibility was good. Long and variable lag times, which are a matter of concern when using human and pig skin, did not occur with RHE. Due to the successful transfer of the protocol, it is now in the validation process.