Evaluation of Bioequivalence for Avapritinib Tablets in Chinese Participants Under Fasting Conditions Using a Reference-Scaled Average Bioequivalence Method

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development Pub Date : 2024-03-25 DOI:10.1002/cpdd.1398
Zenglian Yue, Yin Wang, Zeng Li, Tao Jin, Yucheng Sheng
{"title":"Evaluation of Bioequivalence for Avapritinib Tablets in Chinese Participants Under Fasting Conditions Using a Reference-Scaled Average Bioequivalence Method","authors":"Zenglian Yue,&nbsp;Yin Wang,&nbsp;Zeng Li,&nbsp;Tao Jin,&nbsp;Yucheng Sheng","doi":"10.1002/cpdd.1398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study aimed to assess the bioequivalence of 2 avapritinib tablets formulations. A randomized, open-label, single-center trial was conducted on fasting, healthy Chinese participants. The study utilized a partial replicated design with 3 sequences and 3 periods. Participants were assigned to 1 of 3 sequences, with each sequence receiving the reference formulation twice and the test formulation once. Plasma samples were collected and analyzed to determine pharmacokinetic parameters. The bioequivalence of the 2 avapritinib formulations was assessed using reference-scaled average bioequivalence for the maximum plasma concentration (C<sub>max</sub>) and the average bioequivalence analysis for the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). Out of 39 participants, 38 completed the study. For C<sub>max</sub>, the 1-sided 95% upper confidence interval (CI) bound from the scaled approach was −0.035 (&lt;0) and the point estimate value was 0.958, falling inside the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25. For both the AUC over all concentrations measured (AUC<sub>0-t</sub>) and the AUC from time 0 to infinity (AUC<sub>0-inf</sub>), the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios (0.87-1.01) also met the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8-1.25. Consequently, the study demonstrated that the 2 avapritinib formulations were bioequivalent under fasting conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10495,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development","volume":"13 6","pages":"672-676"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpdd.1398","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the bioequivalence of 2 avapritinib tablets formulations. A randomized, open-label, single-center trial was conducted on fasting, healthy Chinese participants. The study utilized a partial replicated design with 3 sequences and 3 periods. Participants were assigned to 1 of 3 sequences, with each sequence receiving the reference formulation twice and the test formulation once. Plasma samples were collected and analyzed to determine pharmacokinetic parameters. The bioequivalence of the 2 avapritinib formulations was assessed using reference-scaled average bioequivalence for the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and the average bioequivalence analysis for the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). Out of 39 participants, 38 completed the study. For Cmax, the 1-sided 95% upper confidence interval (CI) bound from the scaled approach was −0.035 (<0) and the point estimate value was 0.958, falling inside the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25. For both the AUC over all concentrations measured (AUC0-t) and the AUC from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf), the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios (0.87-1.01) also met the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8-1.25. Consequently, the study demonstrated that the 2 avapritinib formulations were bioequivalent under fasting conditions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
采用参考比例平均生物等效性方法评估空腹条件下中国参试者服用阿伐普替尼片的生物等效性
本研究旨在评估两种阿伐替尼片剂的生物等效性。该研究在空腹的健康中国参与者中进行了一项随机、开放标签、单中心试验。研究采用了部分重复设计,包括 3 个序列和 3 个时间段。参与者被分配到 3 个序列中的 1 个序列,每个序列接受参考制剂 2 次,试验制剂 1 次。收集血浆样本并进行分析,以确定药代动力学参数。采用最大血浆浓度(Cmax)的参比平均生物等效性和浓度-时间曲线下面积(AUC)的平均生物等效性分析评估两种阿伐普替尼制剂的生物等效性。在 39 名参与者中,38 人完成了研究。就 Cmax 而言,按比例计算法得出的单侧 95% 置信区间上限 (CI) 界值为 -0.035 (0-t),而从时间 0 到无穷大的 AUC (AUC0-inf),几何平均比值的 90% CI (0.87-1.01)也达到了 0.8-1.25 的生物等效性标准。因此,该研究表明,两种阿伐普替尼制剂在空腹条件下具有生物等效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
154
期刊介绍: Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development is an international, peer-reviewed, online publication focused on publishing high-quality clinical pharmacology studies in drug development which are primarily (but not exclusively) performed in early development phases in healthy subjects.
期刊最新文献
Determination of the Bioavailability of 3 Intranasal Formulations of Azelastine Hydrochloride in Healthy Male Volunteers. Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Certepetide in Human Subjects With Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. A Comparative Analysis of the Pharmacodynamic and Pharmacokinetic Properties of 2 Controlled-Release Formulations Versus a Marketed Orlistat Product. Bioequivalence Study of 2 Formulations of Fluticasone Nasal Spray in Healthy Chinese Volunteers. Impact of Sotorasib, a KRAS G12C Inhibitor, on the Pharmacokinetics and Therapeutic Window of Digoxin, a P-Glycoprotein Substrate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1