A randomized, open-label, crossover study to compare the safety and pharmacokinetics of two tablet formulations of tenofovir (tenofovir disoproxil and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: This study was performed to compare the pharmacokinetic properties and assess bioequivalence for the test formulation (HUG116 tablet; tenofovir disoproxil) and reference formulation (Viread tablet; tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, single-dosing, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence cross-over study was conducted in 50 healthy subjects. All subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two sequences, and they received a single dose of test or reference formulation in the first period and the alternative formulation during the next period under fasting conditions. Serial blood samples for pharmacokinetic evaluation were collected up to 72 hours post dose, and the pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated by noncompartmental methods. Throughout the study, tolerability was assessed based on adverse events, vital signs, and clinical laboratory tests. RESULTS: The test formulation showed similar pharmacokinetic profiles to those of the reference formulation. The geometric mean ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) of the test formulation to the reference formulation for maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) was 0.93 (0.87 - 0.99), and the corresponding value for the area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to time of last quantifiable concentration (AUCt) was 0.94 (0.89 - 0.99). Both CIs were within the conventional bioequivalence range of 0.8 - 1.25. The tolerability profile was not significantly different between the test and reference formulations. CONCLUSION: This study found that the PKs of the test formulation (HUG116 tablet; tenofovir disoproxil) and reference formulation (Viread tablet; tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) were similar, and the test formulation met the regulatory criteria for assuming bioequivalence with the reference formulation.

Comparison of pharmacokinetics and safety characteristics between two olopatadine hydrochloride 5 mg tablet formulations in healthy Korean subjects.

Histamine acts by binding to four histamine receptors (H1 to H4), of which the H1 is known to participate in dilate blood vessels, bronchoconstriction, and pruritus. Olopatadine hydrochloride blocks the release of histamine from mast cells and it inhibits H1 receptor activation. Olopatadine hydrochloride is anti-allergic agent that is effectively used. The object of this study had conducted to compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and safety characteristics between olopatadine hydrochloride 5 mg (test formulation) and olopatadine hydrochloride 5 mg (reference formulation; Alerac ®) in Korean subjects. This study had conducted an open-label, randomized, fasting condition, single-dose, 2-treatment, 2-period, 2-way crossover. Subjects received single-dosing of reference formulation or test formulation in each period and blood samples were collected over 24 hours after administration for PK analysis. A wash-out period of 7 days was placed between the doses. Plasma concentration of olopatadine were determined using liquid chromatography-tandem spectrometry mass (LC-MS/MS). A total of 32 subjects were enrolled and 28 subjects completed. There were not clinical significantly different in the safety between two treatment groups for 32 subjects who administered the study drug more than once. The geometric mean ratio of test formulation to reference formulation and its 90% confidence intervals for The peak plasma concentration (Cmax) and the areas under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to the last concentration (AUClast) were 1.0845 (1.0107-1.1637) and 1.0220 (1.0005-1.0439), respectively. Therefore, the test formulation was bioequivalent in PK characteristics and was equally safe as the reference formulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0005943.

Bioequivalence for a Fixed-Dose Combination Formulation of Bazedoxifene and Cholecalciferol Compared With the Corresponding Single Entities Given Together.

A fixed-dose combination (FDC) formulation of bazedoxifene 20 mg and cholecalciferol 8 mg was developed to increase medication compliance and convenience for osteoporosis patients. This study was conducted to demonstrate bioequivalence by comparing the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and tolerability of an FDC tablet and the individual component tablets. A randomized, open-label, single-dosing, 2-treatment, 2-period, 2-sequence crossover study was conducted in 52 healthy subjects. All subjects were randomly assigned to 2 sequences, and they received FDC tablets of bazedoxifene and cholecalciferol and individual component tablets. Serial blood samples for PK evaluation were collected up to 24 hours predose and 120 hours postdose, and the PK parameters were estimated by noncompartmental methods. Throughout the study, tolerability was assessed based on adverse events, vital signs, and clinical laboratory tests. Of the enrolled 52 subjects, 47 subjects completed the study. The results, the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals (90%CIs), of bazedoxifene Cmax and AUC0-t for FDC to single entities given together were 0.98 (0.91-1.05) and 1.02 (0.97-1.07), respectively. The GMRs (90%CIs) of cholecalciferol Cmax and AUC0-t for FDC to single entities given together were 0.96 (0.91-1.00) and 0.94 (0.90-0.99), respectively. Overall, the GMRs (90%CIs) of the PK parameter of bazedoxifene and cholecalciferol fell within the conventional bioequivalence range of 0.8-1.25. There were no clinically significant differences in the safety profile between the 2 treatments. In conclusion, this study confirmed the development of a new FDC drug by demonstrating that the FDC formulation of bazedoxifene and cholecalciferol is biologically equivalent to the coadministered individual formulations.

Pharmacokinetic comparison of two bazedoxifene acetate 20 mg tablet formulations in healthy Korean male volunteers.

Bazedoxifene, used as bazedoxifene acetate, is a selective estrogen receptor modulator that selectively affects the uterus, breast tissue, bone metabolism, and lipid metabolism by antagonizing or enhancing estrogens in the estrogen receptor in the tissue. This study was conducted as an open, randomized, two-period, two-treatment, crossover design to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics and tolerability of two bazedoxifene tablets when administered to 50 healthy Korean male volunteers. Enrolled subjects were randomly allocated to 2 sequences of a single oral administration of a test drug and a reference drug, or vice versa with a 14-day washout period between the two doses. Serial blood samples were collected over 96 h for PK analysis. Plasma concentration of bazedoxifene was assayed using liquid chromatography-tandem spectrometry mass. Forty-five participants completed the study with no clinically relevant safety issues. The peak concentrations (Cmax, mean ± strandard deviation) of reference drug and test drug were 3.191 ± 1.080 and 3.231 ± 1.346 ng/mL, respectively, and the areas under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to the last measurable concentration (AUClast) were 44.697 ± 21.168 ng∙h/mL and 45.902 ± 23.130 ng∙h/mL, respectively. The geometric mean ratios of test drug to reference drug and their 90% confidence intervals for Cmax and AUClast were 0.9913 (0.8828-1.1132) and 1.0106 (0.9345-1.0929), respectively. The incidence of adverse events between the two formulations was similar. The present study showed that PK and tolerability of two bazedoxifene tablet formulations were comparable when administered to healthy Korean male volunteers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0003978.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine HCl with different epinephrine concentration for local anesthesia in participants undergoing surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover, phase IV trial.

BACKGROUND: The most commonly impacted tooth is the third molar. An impacted third molar can ultimately cause acute pain, infection, tumors, cysts, caries, periodontal disease, and loss of adjacent teeth. Local anesthesia is employed for removing the third molar. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 or 1:200,000 epinephrine for surgical extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars. METHODS: Sixty-five healthy participants underwent surgical extraction of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars in 2 separate visits while under local anesthesia with 2% lidocaine with different epinephrine concentration (1:80,000 or 1:200,000) in a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial. Visual analog scale pain scores obtained immediately after surgical extraction were primarily evaluated for the 2 groups receiving different epinephrine concentrations. Visual analog scale pain scores were obtained 2, 4, and 6 hours after administering an anesthetic. Onset and duration of analgesia, onset of pain, intraoperative bleeding, operator's and participant's overall satisfaction, drug dosage, and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated for the 2 groups. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in any measurements except hemodynamic factors (P >.05). Changes in systolic blood pressure and heart rate following anesthetic administration were significantly greater in the group receiving 1:80,000 epinephrine than in that receiving 1:200,000 epinephrine (P ≤.01). CONCLUSION: The difference in epinephrine concentration between 1:80,000 and 1:200,000 in 2% lidocaine liquid does not affect the medical efficacy of the anesthetic. Furthermore, 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine has better safety with regard to hemodynamic parameters than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine. Therefore, we suggest using 2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine rather than 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars in hemodynamically unstable patients.