...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Veterinary Research >Is switching from brand name to generic formulations of phenobarbital associated with loss of antiepileptic efficacy?: a pharmacokinetic study with two oral formulations (Luminal? vet, Phenoleptil?) in dogs
【24h】

Is switching from brand name to generic formulations of phenobarbital associated with loss of antiepileptic efficacy?: a pharmacokinetic study with two oral formulations (Luminal? vet, Phenoleptil?) in dogs

机译:从苯巴比妥的品牌名称转换为通用制剂是否会导致抗癫痫药的功效丧失:一项在犬中使用两种口服制剂(Luminal?vet,Phenoleptil?)的药代动力学研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Background In human medicine, adverse outcomes associated with switching between bioequivalent brand name and generic antiepileptic drug products is a subject of concern among clinicians. In veterinary medicine, epilepsy in dogs is usually treated with phenobarbital, either with the standard brand name formulation Luminal? or the veterinary products Luminal? vet and the generic formulation Phenoleptil?. Luminal? and Luminal? vet are identical 100?mg tablet formulations, while Phenoleptil? is available in the form of 12.5 and 50?mg tablets. Following approval of Phenoleptil? for treatment of canine epilepsy, it was repeatedly reported by clinicians and dog owners that switching from Luminal? (human tablets) to Phenoleptil? in epileptic dogs, which were controlled by treatment with Luminal?, induced recurrence of seizures. In the present study, we compared bioavailability of phenobarbital after single dose administration of Luminal? vet vs. Phenoleptil? with a crossover design in 8 healthy Beagle dogs. Both drugs were administered at a dose of 100?mg/dog, resulting in 8?mg/kg phenobarbital on average. Results Peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) following Luminal? vet vs. Phenoleptil? were about the same in most dogs (10.9?±?0.92 vs. 10.5?±?0.77?μg/ml), and only one dog showed noticeable lower concentrations after Phenoleptil? vs. Luminal? vet. Elimination half-life was about 50?h (50.3?±?3.1 vs. 52.9?±?2.8?h) without differences between the formulations. The relative bioavailability of the two products (Phenoleptil? vs. Luminal? vet.) was 0.98?±?0.031, indicating that both formulations resulted in about the same bioavailability. Conclusions Overall, the two formulations did not differ significantly with respect to pharmacokinetic parameters when mean group parameters were compared. Thus, the reasons for the anecdotal reports, if true, that switching from the brand to the generic formulation of phenobarbital may lead to recurrence of seizures are obviously not related to a generally lower bioavailability of the generic formulation, although single dogs may exhibit lower plasma levels after the generic formulation that could be clinically meaningful.
机译:背景技术在人类医学中,与生物等效品牌名称和通用抗癫痫药产品之间转换相关的不良后果是临床医生关注的一个问题。在兽医学中,通常用苯巴比妥治疗狗的癫痫症,或者使用标准品牌名称Luminal?还是兽用Luminal产品?兽医和通用制剂苯酚吗?发光的?和发光的?兽医是相同的100毫克片剂,而苯那普利?可提供12.5和50?mg片剂的形式。酚苯哌啶批准后?对于犬类癫痫的治疗,临床医生和狗主人反复报告说,从Luminal转换为Luminal? (人类片剂)到苯酚吗?在癫痫犬中,通过Luminal?治疗可控制癫痫发作,引起癫痫发作复发。在本研究中,我们比较了单剂量施用Luminal?后苯巴比妥的生物利用度。兽医与苯酚安非他明?在8条健康的比格犬中进行交叉设计。两种药物的剂量均为100?mg /狗,平均苯巴比妥的剂量为8?mg / kg。结果发光后的血浆峰值浓度(C max )兽医与苯酚安非他明?在大多数狗中大约是相同的(10.9±±0.92 vs. 10.5±±0.77μg/ ml),并且只有一只狗在苯酚安定之后显示出明显较低的浓度。与光明?兽医。消除半衰期约为50?h(50.3?±?3.1 vs. 52.9?±?2.8?h),配方之间无差异。两种产品的相对生物利用度(苯酚肽?vs. Luminal?vet。)为0.98?±?0.031,表明两种配方产生的生物利用度大致相同。结论总体而言,当比较平均组参数时,两种制剂的药代动力学参数没有显着差异。因此,有关传闻的报道(如果属实)的原因很明显,即从单只狗可能显示出较低的血浆中,从苯巴比妥的品牌转换为仿制药可能导致癫痫发作的复发,显然与仿制药的生物利用度总体上没有关系。通用制剂后的水平可能具有临床意义。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号