首页> 外文OA文献 >Lack of pharmacokinetic bioequivalence between generic and branded amoxicillin formulations. A post-marketing clinical study on healthy volunteers
【2h】

Lack of pharmacokinetic bioequivalence between generic and branded amoxicillin formulations. A post-marketing clinical study on healthy volunteers

机译:通用和品牌阿莫西林制剂之间缺乏药代动力学生物等效性。健康志愿者的上市后临床研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

AIMS: There are concerns about the quality of generic drugs in the postmarketing setting. The aim was to establish whether two generic formulations of amoxicillin, available on the Italian market, fulfil the criteria for clinical pharmacokinetic bioequivalence vs. the branded drug.METHODS: Two generic amoxicillin products (generic A and B) were selected among four fast-release tablet formulations available on the Italian market. Twenty-four healthy adult volunteers of either sex participated to a single-dose, randomized, three-treatment, crossover, single-blind bioequivalence study designed to compare generic A and B with branded amoxicillin. Plasma samples were collected at preset times for 24 h after dosing, and assayed for amoxicillin levels by high-performance liquid chromatography.RESULTS: Ninety percent confidence intervals of AUC ratios were 0.8238, 1.0502 (ratio 0.9302) and 0.8116, 1.1007 (ratio 0.9452) for generic A and B vs. branded amoxicillin, respectively. Ninety percent confidence intervals of C(max) ratios were 0.7921, 1.0134 (ratio 0.8960) and 0.8246, 1.1199 (ratio 0.9610) for generic A and B vs. branded amoxicillin, respectively. The mean pharmacokinetic profiles showed that the AUC value of branded amoxicillin was 8.5 and 5.4% greater than that estimated for generic A and B, respectively. Few adverse events were recorded; these were not serious and occurred without apparent relationship to any specific amoxicillin formulation.CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that one of the two marketed amoxicillin generics analysed in the present study is not bioequivalent to the brand leader product for C(max) on the basis of single-dose pharmacokinetic assessment.
机译:目的:在上市后的环境中,仿制药的质量令人担忧。目的是确定在意大利市场上出售的两种阿莫西林通用制剂是否满足临床药代动力学与品牌药物的临床等效性标准。方法:在四个快速释放药物中选择了两种通用阿莫西林产品(通用A和B)意大利市场上有片剂配方。二十四名健康的成年志愿者,不论性别,均参加了一项单剂量,随机,三疗程,交叉,单盲生物等效性研究,旨在比较仿制药A和B与品牌的阿莫西林。给药后24小时在预设时间收集血浆样品,并通过高效液相色谱法测定阿莫西林水平。结果:AUC比率的90%置信区间为0.8238、1.0502(比率0.9302)和0.8116、1.1007(比率0.9452)分别针对仿制药A和B与品牌阿莫西林。与品牌的阿莫西林相比,仿制药A和B的C(max)比的90%置信区间分别为0.7921、1.0134(比率0.8960)和0.8246、1.1199(比率0.9610)。平均药代动力学曲线表明,烙印的阿莫西林的AUC值分别比仿制药A和B的估计值分别高8.5和5.4%。几乎没有不良事件的记录;结论:这些结果表明,在本研究中分析的两种市售阿莫西林仿制药之一与C(max)的品牌领导者产品在生物等效性上不相同。单剂量药代动力学评估。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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