- Wednesday, November 1, 2006
- Bioequivalence study of two fluoxetine capsule formulations in healthy Middle Eastern volunteers
- Published at:INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS Volume: 44 Issue: 11 Pages: 593-602 Published: NOV 2006
Objective: To assess the bioequivalence of two fluoxetine hydrochloride capsule (20 mg) formulations (Fluoxicare capsule from Pharmocare Ltd., Chemicals and Cosmetics, Ramallah, Palestine, as test formulation, and Prozac from Eli Lilly Ltd., Basingstoke, UK, as reference formulation). Design and methods: The study was conducted open with a randomized 2-period crossover design and a 6-week washout period. Participants were 24 healthy male volunteers aged 18 - 28 years, divided into 2 groups of 12 subjects. One group was given the originator drug (reference formulation), and the other was given the test formulation. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and at 14 time points during the interval 0 - 96 hours after drug administration. The concentrations of the samples were assayed spectrophotometrically at 220 nm using a Shimadzu 160 A UV-visible spectrometer. We calculated the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC), maximum plasma concentration (C-max), and time of maximum plasma concentration (t(max)) for each subject. Logarithmic transformation of the AUC and C-max was used for the statistical analyses and to assess the bioavailability of the two formulations, using analyses of variance (ANOVA) and Satherwait t-tests for unequal variances. The ANOVA performed Of t(max) in C-max, and in AUC provided the appropriate intra-subject variance estimates to evaluate the 90% confidence intervals for the differences between study variables after administration of the test and reference formulations. Statistical analyses were conducted on AUC(0-4) as the extrapolated part of the AUC, a truncated area approach was adapted. Results: The mean pharmacokinetic parameters for both of the drugs under study were as follows: C-max = 61.24 (+/- 12.96) ng/ml for the test formulation, and for the reference formulation C-max = 61.39 (+/- 14.1) ng/ml, the effects were statistically equivalent. The tmax for the test formulation was 8.25 (+/- 1.7) and 7.33 (+/- 0.96) for the reference formulation. The area under the curve to infinity (AUC(0-infinity) (ng, day/ml)) for the test formulation and for the reference formulation were 293.02 (+/- 52.69) and 296.15 (+/- 61.69), respectively. Conclusions: The two formulations had equivalent pharmacokinetic parameters, were well-tolerated, and their relative bioavailability was 98.94%.