Zentiva, k.s., Prague, Czech Republic.
Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Mar;17(3):e13752. doi: 10.1111/cts.13752.
Administration of oral medicinal products as crushed tablets or open capsules is an important delivery option for patients suffering from dysphagia. To obtain full interchangeability of generics with the original products, demonstration of bioequivalence (BE) between both products administered as crushed tablets/open capsules was required for poorly soluble product by European Medicines Agency (EMA) at the time of development of our rivaroxaban and deferasirox generic products. We present the results of two BE studies with modified administration of these products, which compared relative bioavailability between generic and reference products. In the rivaroxaban study, the test product was administered as a capsule sprinkled on and mixed with applesauce, whereas the reference tablet was crushed and administered with applesauce under fed conditions. In the deferasirox study, both treatments were administered as crushed tablets under fasting conditions. Both studies applied a two-way crossover design and were conducted after a single-dose in healthy volunteers. The 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio area under the analyte concentration versus time curve, from time zero to the time of the last measurable analyte concentration and maximum measured analyte concentration over the sampling period of the test to reference ratio were 103.36-110.37% and 97.98-108.45% for rivaroxaban, respectively, and 96.69-107.29% and 94.19-109.45% for deferasirox, respectively. Thus, the BE criteria (80.00-125.00%) were met in both studies which demonstrated that bioavailability was not affected when the test and reference products were administered in the form of crushed tablet/open capsule. These results support the argument of redundancy of crushed product studies for poorly soluble drugs, which is in line with the currently revised position of the EMA on this topic.
将口服药物制成粉碎的片剂或打开的胶囊给药,是吞咽困难患者的一种重要的给药选择。在开发利伐沙班和地拉罗司仿制药时,由于原研产品为低溶解度药物,当时的欧洲药品管理局(EMA)要求将粉碎的片剂/打开的胶囊两种制剂给药方式进行生物等效性(BE)研究,以确保仿制药与原研药之间具有完全的可互换性。我们介绍了这两种改良给药方式的 BE 研究结果,这些研究比较了仿制药和参比制剂之间的相对生物利用度。在利伐沙班研究中,受试制剂以胶囊形式给药,然后将胶囊内的药物撒在苹果酱上,与苹果酱混合;而参比片剂则在进食条件下粉碎后与苹果酱给药。在地拉罗司研究中,两种治疗方法均在禁食条件下以粉碎的片剂形式给药。这两项研究均采用双交叉设计,在健康志愿者中单次给药后进行。受试制剂与参比制剂的时间零至最后可测量分析物浓度时间曲线下面积比(AUC0-t ,last )和最大测量分析物浓度时间曲线下面积比(AUC0-t ,max )的几何均数比值的 90%置信区间分别为 103.36%-110.37%和 97.98%-108.45%,地拉罗司分别为 96.69%-107.29%和 94.19%-109.45%。因此,这两项研究均符合 BE 标准(80.00%-125.00%),证明当以粉碎的片剂/打开的胶囊形式给药时,受试制剂和参比制剂的生物利用度不受影响。这些结果支持了对于低溶解度药物,粉碎产品研究具有冗余性的观点,这与 EMA 目前在这一主题上的修订立场一致。