Search

Empagliflozin and metformin are oral antidiabetic drugs commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus as a combination therapy. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics and safety of a newly developed fixed-dose combination of 5-mg empagliflozin L-proline and 1000-mg metformin with the reference drug. A randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-period, 2-treatment, crossover study was conducted in healthy Korean subjects. The subjects received a single oral dose of reference drug or test drug at each period. The pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were calculated using a noncompartmental method. The geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals of the plasma maximum concentration (C max ) and area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC last ) were calculated. A total of 27 healthy subjects were included in the PK analysis. For empagliflozin, the geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) of the test to reference drug for C max and AUC last were 1.03 (0.99-1.08) and 1.03 (1.00-1.06), respectively. For metformin, the corresponding values for C max  and AUC last were 0.99 (0.92-1.06) and 1.00 (0.94-1.06), respectively. In conclusion, a fixed-dose combination of empagliflozin L-proline and metformin showed similar PK characteristics to the reference drug, and both drugs were safe in healthy subjects., (© 2023, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Purpose: Empagliflozin is a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor that is commonly used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. As cocrystal formulation can improve the chemical properties of drugs, CKD-370 was newly developed as a cocrystal formulation of empagliflozin with solvate L-proline. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of these two empagliflozin formulations in healthy Korean subjects., Methods: A randomized, open-label, two-sequence, two-period crossover study was conducted on healthy Korean participants. The subjects received a single oral 25 mg dose of either test (CKD-370) or reference treatment (Jardiance ® ) tablet at each period. Plasma empagliflozin concentrations were determined using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were analyzed using non-compartmental methods. The primary PK parameters included the maximum concentration (C max ) and the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to last (AUC last ). The safety of both formulations was monitored and evaluated., Results: A total of 28 healthy Korean adult subjects were randomized, and 27 subjects were included in the PK analysis. The mean ± standard deviation values of the primary PK parameters, C max and AUC last after administration of the test treatment, were 442.02 ± 103.37 μg/L and 3131.08 ± 529.30 μg·h/L, respectively, and those after administration of the reference treatment were 436.29 ± 118.74 μg/L and 3006.88 ± 514.21 μg·h/L, respectively. The geometric mean ratio and its 90% confidence interval of test to reference treatment for C max and AUC last were 1.0221 (0.9527-1.0967) and 1.0411 (1.0153-1.0677), respectively, which were within the commonly accepted bioequivalence criteria of 0.80 to 1.25. Both treatments were well-tolerated., Conclusion: The two formulations of empagliflozin showed similar PK characteristics and were generally well tolerated in healthy subjects., Competing Interests: Shin Jung Park is a full-time employee of Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical Corporation. The authors report no other conflicts of interest associated with this work., (© 2023 Jiang et al.)

Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of two formulations of -DuvieTM (0.5-mg lobeglitazone sulfate)., Materials and Methods: This study was designed as an open-label, randomized, single-dose, crossover bioequivalence study in healthy male subjects. A total of 28 subjects were randomized into two groups: one group received the test drug, 0.5-mg DuvieTM tablets, which have formulations available on the global market; and the other group received the reference drug, the initially-approved 0.5-mg DuvieTM tablets. Plasma samples were collected for up to 48 hours after drug treatment and were analyzed for lobeglitazone using validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Individual pharmacokinetic properties were determined by noncompartmental methods. Safety assessments were performed., Results: 28 subjects completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. The mean (standard deviation) values of -AUClast for the test and reference formulations were 367.49 (157.92) and 362.40 (140.05) ng×h/mL, respectively. The mean (standard deviation) values of Cmax for the test and reference formulations were 50.35 (6.94) and 49.29 (6.71) ng/mL, respectively. The 90% confidence intervals for AUClast and Cmax were 0.9150 - 1.1088 and 0.9879 - 1.0561, respectively. All adverse events were mild, and there were no serious adverse events., Conclusion: This study suggests that the two lobeglitazone tablet formulations have similar exposure and absorption rates. Therefore, the newly-developed formulation of the 0.5-mg DuvieTM tablet is expected to contribute to the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.
.

Background: Imatinib mesylate is used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia and advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors., Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics of 2 different strengths of the imatinib formulation containing 100 mg (reference) and 400 mg (test) to satisfy the regulatory requirement for marketing., Methods: A single-center, randomized, single-dose, open-label, 2-period, 2-sequence, comparative crossover study with a 14-day washout period was conducted in 30 healthy male volunteers. Plasma samples for the drug analysis were collected up to 72 hours after drug treatment. Participants received either the reference (4 tablets of 100-mg imatinib) or the test (1 tablet of 400-mg imatinib) formulation during the first period and the alternative formulation during the second period. The safety profiles and tolerability of the 2 formulations were also assessed based on physical examinations, laboratory tests, a 12-lead ECG, and vital signs., Results: Thirty participants were initially enrolled; their mean (SD) age, height, weight, and body mass index were 24.9 (2.0) years (range, 23-30 years), 174 (5) cm (range, 164-185 cm), 69.9 (2.0) kg (range, 54.1-87.4 kg), and 23.0 (2.0) kg/m(2) (range, 18.5-26.9 kg/m(2)); 28 healthy participants completed both treatment periods. Two subjects did not complete the study because they withdrew consent for personal reasons. The observed mean (SD) Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-∞ values for the reference formulation were 1792 (357) ng/mL, 28,485 (6274) ng · h/mL, and 29,079 (6371) ng · h/mL, respectively. Corresponding values for the test formulation were 1710 (312) ng/mL, 27,222 (4624) ng · h/mL , and 27,872 (4751) ng · h/mL. The geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) between the 2 formulations at the 400-mg dose of imatinib were 0.9579 (0.9054-1.0136) for Cmax, 0.9652 (0.9174-1.0155) for AUC0-last, and 0.9679 (0.9203-1.0179) for AUC0-∞, respectively. During the study period, 6 adverse events (3 for the reference and 3 for the test formulation) were reported; all were transient, mild, and resolved completely during the treatment period. There were 4 cases of nausea and 1 case each of dizziness and oropharyngeal pain. Four adverse events were considered related to the study drugs., Conclusions: The results showed that despite the different strengths of the 2 imatinib formations, the test and reference formulations both met the regulatory criteria for pharmacokinetic equivalence at a dose of imatinib 400 mg in these healthy Korean male subjects. Both imatinib formulations seemed to be generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01270984., (© 2013 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.)