Search

The role of metabolites in bioequivalence studies has been a contentious issue for many years. Many papers have published recommendations for the use of metabolite data based on anecdotal evidence from the results of bioequivalence studies. Such anecdotal evidence has validity, but the arguments lack weight because the "correct" answers are always unknown. A more promising area of exploration is recommendations based on simulated bioequivalence studies for which the "correct" answers are known, given the assumptions. A review of the literature, however, reveals scant evidence of attempts to apply to real data the pharmacokinetic principles on which the recommendations from simulated studies relied. We therefore applied those principles (based on estimates of intrinsic clearance after oral administration of the parent drug) to four bioequivalence studies from our archives, in which the parent drug and at least one metabolite were monitored. In each case, the outcome is discussed in the context of the complexity of the metabolic processes that impact on the parent drug and the metabolite(s) during the first passage from the intestinal lumen to the systemic circulation. Our observation is that no simple generalization can be made such that each drug/metabolite combination must be examined individually. Our recommendation, however, is that in the interests of safety, bioequivalence decision-making should be based on the parent drug whenever possible.

Purpose: To test the hypothesis that the pharmacokinetics of d-methylphenidate (d-MPH) would be altered by food ingested before administration of an immediate release formulation (dl-MPH- IR) but not when food is ingested before a slow release formulation (dl-MPH-SR)., Methods: A randomized, four-phase, open label, crossover design was conducted in 24 healthy men who each received, on separate occasions, dl-MPH-IR and dl-MPH-SR taken after an overnight fast and 15 min after a standardized breakfast (20% protein, 21% fat, 59% carbohydrate). Plasma MPH levels were monitored by a validated, stereoselective. GLC-ECD method., Results: For plasma d-MPH, there were significant differences (ANOVA) between dl-MPH-IR and dl-MPH-SR in tmax, Cmax (peak exposure), and Cmax/AUC (sensitive to rate of absorption). Dl-MPH-SR on average delayed tmax from 2.3 to 3.7 h and lowered Cmax 34%. There was no significant difference between the formulations in AUC (extent of absorption). For dl-MPH-IR, food significantly increased Cmax (23%) and AUC (15%) and for dl-MPH-SR the corresponding increases were Cmax (17%) and AUC (14%). After dl-MPH-IR, food delayed average tmax from 2.0 to 2.5 but had no effect on tmax after dl-MPH-SR. There was no effect of food on Cmax/AUC (rate of absorption)., Conclusions: Food caused a significant increase in extent of absorption but had no effect on rate of absorption of d-MPH after either dl-MPHIR or dl-MPH-SR.

Purpose: To establish procedures for the effective evaluation of bioequivalence (BE) for highly-variable drugs and drug products (HVD/P)., Methods: 2- and 4-period crossover BE studies with 24 subjects were simulated which generally assumed within-subject coefficients of variation of 40%. The relationship between the fraction of studies in which BE was accepted (the statistical power) and the ratio of geometric means (GMR) of the two formulations was evaluated for various methods of analysis. These included, primarily, scaled average BE (ABE), the corresponding approach of expanding BE limits (BEL), and, for comparison, unscaled ABE and scaled individual BE (IBE)., Results: Scaled ABE and expanding BEL showed very similar properties in both 2- and 4-period studies. They had steeper power curves than scaled IBE. Unscaled ABE had very low statistical power. The acceptance of BE by unscaled and scaled ABE and expanding BEL was almost independent of subject-by-formulation interaction and the ratio of within-subject variations of the two formulations. By contrast, the conclusions reached by scaled IBE were strongly affected by these parameters., Conclusions: Scaled ABE and expanding BEL evaluate BE effectively for HVD/P in both 2- and 4-period investigations. However, additional, useful information can be obtained from 4-period studies.

Purpose: The release and presystemic absorption of fluphenazine and its decanoate ester from intramuscular depots were investigated., Methods: Rats were sacrificed in groups of three at various times after injection of drug or prodrug in sesame oil. Muscle tissues at the injection sites and various lymph nodes were excised. Blood (plasma) was harvested by cardiac puncture., Results: Following administration of fluphenazine decanoate, the amount of prodrug at the sites of injection declined exponentially (half-life 3.4 days). Highest concentrations of drug and prodrug were found in iliac and hypogastric lymph nodes nearest to injection sites in which both analytes were detectable 28 days post dose. The half-life for the decline of fluphenazine from lymph nodes (4.6 days) was similar to that from plasma (4.3 days). Following administration of fluphenazine base, only 2.8% of the dose remained at the sites of injection after 2 days. Concentrations of drug in iliac and hypogastric lymph nodes were comparable to those in distal lymph nodes. Fluphenazine concentrations in the lymphatic tissues decreased at about the same rate as plasma concentrations., Conclusions: The rate limiting step appeared to be slow partitioning of the decanoate from oily deposits at the injection site and proximal lymph nodes with subsequent hydrolysis of the ester group.

Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic characteristics of fluphenazine (FLU) and its decanoate (FLU-D) after intravenous and intramuscular administration to dogs., Methods: A group of four beagle dogs was used in all intravenous and intramuscular experiments, with washout periods of no less than three months between doses., Results: After intravenous FLU-D, the pharmacokinetics of the prodrug (mean +/- SD) were as follows: Clearance (CL) 42.9 +/- 6.3 L/h; terminal half-life (t1/2) 3.5 +/- 0.8 h; volume of distribution (Vd) 216 +/- 61 L. The fractional availability of FLU was 1.0 +/- 0.2. After intravenous FLU, the volume of distribution of FLU (51 +/- 17.8 L) was some 4 fold less than that of the prodrug. Simulations (Stella II) suggested that the rate limiting step was slow formation of FLU from the prodrug in the tissue compartment. After intramuscular FLU-D in sesame oil, the apparent t1/2 of FLU was 9.7 +/- 2.0 days whereas after intramuscular FLU base in sesame oil, the apparent t1/2 was only 7.7 +/- 3.4 h showing that the absorption of FLU itself from the intramuscular site and proximal lymph nodes is relatively rapid., Conclusions: The rate limiting step after intramuscular FLU-D appeared to be the slow partitioning of the prodrug out of the sesame oil at the injection site and in proximal lymph nodes.

A definitive enantioselective pharmacokinetic evaluation of dl-threo-methylphenidate (MPH) was carried out in 11 healthy volunteers, all of whom received, in a randomized crossover design, three oral administrations of MPH: immediate release (IR), slow release (SR), and SR chewed before swallowing (CH). In addition, all subjects received MPH intravenously (IV) on a separate occasion. Both plasma and urine samples were collected for up to 16 hr after each drug administration. Significant enantioselective differences were found in pharmacokinetic parameters such as CL, MRT, Vdss, AUC infinity 0, and t1/2. A profound distortion of the enantiomeric ratio for MPH (d >> 1) was evident in all plasma samples harvested after oral administration. After IV MPH, however, there was no significant distortion in the plasma d/l ratio until 1.5 hr after dosing, whereafter there was a divergence of the plasma levels of the enantiomers. After oral administration of dl-MPH, the absolute bioavailability (F) of d-MPH was 0.23 and that of l-MPH was 0.05. There were no significant differences in renal clearance for d- or l-MPH after oral or IV administration, although the fraction of the dose excreted unchanged in the urine was significantly greater after IV MPH. These data suggest that enantioselective differences in the pharmacokinetics of oral MPH are the result of enantioselectivity in presystemic metabolism rather than in renal excretion, such that l-MPH is preferentially converted into l-ritalinic acid. Finally, it was found that chewing the slow release formulation led to a pharmacokinetic profile very similar to that of MPH-IR, suggesting that MPH-SR should not be prescribed for children who chew tablets.