THU0188 Evaluation of Single-dose and Steady-State Pharmacokinetics, Bioavailability and Tolerability of the Modified Release Formulation of Tofacitinib vs the Immediate Release Formulation of Tofacitinib in Healthy Volunteers

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 262.3-263
Author(s):  
M. Lamba ◽  
R. Wang ◽  
T. Fletcher ◽  
C. Alvey ◽  
J. Kushner ◽  
...  
CNS Spectrums ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 216-216
Author(s):  
Steve Caras ◽  
Terrilyn Sharpe

AbstractStudy ObjectivesWe compared the bioavailability of racemic amphetamine (d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine) from a manipulation-resistant immediate-release (IR) amphetamine sulfate capsule (AR19) versus amphetamine sulfate IR tablets (reference).MethodIn this open-label, randomized, two-period, two-treatment, two-sequence, crossover study, 36 healthy volunteers aged 18–45 received a single dose (20-mg capsule) of AR19 in one period and a single dose (2 x 10-mg tablets) of reference in another period, after a 10-hour overnight fast. Each drug administration was separated by a washout period of at least 6days. Bioequivalence for d- and l-amphetamine was assessed using time to peak concentration (Tmax), peak concentration in plasma (Cmax), and area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time-zero to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast) and extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf).ResultsAll 36 volunteers completed both treatment sequences. Mean (standard deviation; SD) Tmax for d- and l-amphetamine was similar for AR19 (2.84[1.05]; 3.05[1.22], respectively) and reference (2.52[0.75]; 2.75[1.00], respectively). The geometric least-squares mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals were within the boundary of 80%–125% for bioequivalence for Cmax (d-amphetamine, 98.35% [96.12–100.64]; l-amphetamine, 98.82% [96.42–101.28]), AUClast (d-amphetamine, 99.45% [96.92–102.05]; l-amphetamine, 99.29% [96.55–102.10]), and AUCinf (d-amphetamine, 99.50%[96.77–102.30]; l-amphetamine, 99.23% [96.06–102.50]). A total of 13 mild adverse events were reported by 7 volunteers (AEs; AR19, n=5; reference, n=8). No serious AEs were reported.ConclusionAR19 was well tolerated and was bioequivalent to reference when administered as a 20-mg dose in healthy volunteers.Funding Acknowledgements: This study was funded by Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC.


Drug Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (02/03) ◽  
pp. 91-96
Author(s):  
Soha Mahmoud El-Masry ◽  
Noha Mahmoud El-Khodary

AbstractNifedipine is one of calcium channel blockers that commonly used clinically to treat hypertension and angina in Egyptian patients. A sustained-release (SR) formulation of nifedipine is available in the Egyptian community and administered twice daily. This study aimed to to compare the pharmacokinetics and safety profiles of a 20 mg SR and IR (immediate release) formulation of nifedipine after single-dose administration in healthy Egyptian subjects. Randomized, crossed open-label two- way clinical trial, in 16 healthy adult volunteers, of 24.75±5.20 years, with BMI 23.26±1.756 were assessed. Blood samples were collected at predefined times for 48 h and analyzed for Nifedipine plasma concentrations using validated reversed phase liquid chromatography method with ultraviolet detection. Pharmacokinetics was determined using non- compartmental model pharmacokinetics and analyzed using one-way ANOVA (P≤0.05). Following a single oral administration, SR formulation had a lower Cmax, compared to IR formulation (54.46±17.75 , 107.45±29.85 ng/mL, respectively), and Tmax was significantly longer (2.97 vs. 1.13 h) for the SR and IR formulation, respectively. There was no significant difference between the SR and the IR formulations for AUC0–last and AUC0-∞ (326.7±98.28 vs. 309.27±105.53 ng·h·mL−1 and 380.9 ± 105.24 vs. 334.36±108.1 ng·h·mL−1, respectively). SR formulation of nifedipine showed similar pharmacokinetics to the IR Formulation (F%=1.049), but it additionally allows a less frequent administration. Therefore, The nifedipine SR and IR formulations were well tolerated and displayed comparable safety profiles.


2010 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P. Sabo ◽  
Xiuyu (Julie) Cong ◽  
Michael-Friedrich Kraft ◽  
Lacey Wallace ◽  
Mark A. Castles ◽  
...  

1992 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 417-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franck Le Coz ◽  
Christian Funck-Brentano ◽  
Jean-Marie Poirier ◽  
Yves Kibleur ◽  
François Xavier Mazoit ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 46 (12) ◽  
pp. 1469-1480 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Greenblatt ◽  
Eric Legangneux ◽  
Jerold S. Harmatz ◽  
Estelle Weinling ◽  
Jon Freeman ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona Darwish ◽  
Mary Kirby ◽  
Philmore Robertson ◽  
Edward Hellriegel ◽  
John G. Jiang

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document