Department of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research and Center for Pharmacogenomics and Precision Medicine, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Clin Transl Sci. 2022 Jul;15(7):1764-1775. doi: 10.1111/cts.13294. Epub 2022 May 21.
There are limited comparison data throughout the dosing interval for generic versus brand metoprolol extended-release (ER) tablets. We compared the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics of brand name versus two generic formulations (drugs 1 and 2) of metoprolol ER tablets with different time to maximum concentration (T ) in adults with hypertension. Participants were randomized to equal drug doses (50-150 mg/day) administered in one of two sequences (brand-drug1-brand-drug2 or brand-drug2-brand-drug1) and completed 24-h PK, digital heart rate (HR), ambulatory blood pressure (BP), and HR studies after taking each formulation for greater than or equal to 7 days. Metoprolol concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, with noncompartmental analysis performed to obtain PK parameters in Phoenix WinNonlin. Heart rate variability (HRV) low-to-high frequency ratio was determined per quartile over the 24-h period. Thirty-six participants completed studies with the brand name and at least one generic product. Among 30 participants on the 50 mg dose, the primary PK end points of area under the concentration-time curve and C were similar between products; T was 6.1 ± 3.6 for the brand versus 3.5 ± 4.9 for drug 1 (p = 0.019) and 9.6 ± 3.2 for drug 2 (p < 0.001). Among all 36 participants, 24-h BPs and HRs were similar between products. Mean 24-h HRV low-to-high ratio was also similar for drug 1 (2.04 ± 1.35), drug 2 (1.86 ± 1.35), and brand (2.04 ± 1.77), but was more sustained over time for the brand versus drug 1 (drug × quartile interaction p = 0.017). Differences in T between metoprolol ER products following repeated doses may have implications for drug effects on autonomic balance over the dosing interval.
在整个给药间隔内,用于比较通用和品牌美托洛尔缓释片的对照数据有限。我们比较了高血压成人中品牌美托洛尔与两种不同达峰时间(T)的美托洛尔缓释片的通用配方(药物 1 和 2)的药代动力学(PK)和药效学。参与者随机分为相等的药物剂量(50-150mg/天),以两种顺序之一给药(品牌-药物 1-品牌-药物 2 或品牌-药物 2-品牌-药物 1),并在每种配方给药大于或等于 7 天后完成 24 小时 PK、数字心率(HR)、动态血压(BP)和 HR 研究。美托洛尔浓度通过液相色谱串联质谱法确定,采用 Phoenix WinNonlin 进行非房室分析以获得 PK 参数。24 小时期间每四分位数确定心率变异性(HRV)低至高频率比。36 名参与者完成了品牌名称和至少一种通用产品的研究。在 50mg 剂量的 30 名参与者中,产品之间的主要 PK 终点曲线下面积和 C 相似;T 为品牌 6.1±3.6,药物 1 为 3.5±4.9(p=0.019),药物 2 为 9.6±3.2(p<0.001)。在所有 36 名参与者中,产品之间 24 小时 BP 和 HR 相似。药物 1(2.04±1.35)、药物 2(1.86±1.35)和品牌(2.04±1.77)的平均 24 小时 HRV 低至高比也相似,但品牌与药物 1 相比,随时间推移更为持续(药物×四分位数交互作用 p=0.017)。重复给药后美托洛尔 ER 产品的 T 差异可能对给药间隔内药物对自主平衡的影响有影响。