Pharmacokinetics of Long-Acting Methylphenidate: Formulation Differences, Bioequivalence, Interchangeability.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is one of the most common neuropsychiatric conditions in children, and methylphenidate (MPH) is one of the first-line therapies. MPH is available in a variety of extended-release (ER) formulations worldwide, and most formulations are not considered bioequivalent due to differences in pharmacokinetics. It is hypothesized that the current bioequivalence guidelines from the different regulatory bodies may generate inconsistent findings or recommendations when assessing the bioequivalence of ER MPH formulations. This manuscript aims to conduct a comprehensive and narrative critical literature review to analyze pharmacokinetic data pertaining to ER formulations of MPH in order to assess bioequivalence, differences in regulatory guidelines, and additional pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameters that may help define interchangeability.

Methods: A literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library with no time limits. Study characteristics, non-compartmental pharmacokinetic parameters, and bioequivalence data were extracted for analysis.

Results: Thirty-three studies were identified with primary pharmacokinetic data after the administration of ER MPH, of which 10 were direct comparative studies (i.e., at least 2 formulations tested within a single setting) and 23 were indirect comparisons (i.e., different experimental settings). Two formulations were consistently reported as bioequivalent across the regulatory bodies using criteria from their guidance documents, although inconsistencies have been observed. However, when additional kinetic criteria (discussed in this manuscript) were imposed, only one study met the more stringent definition of bioequivalence. Various clinical factors also had inconsistent effects on the pharmacokinetics and interchangeability of the different formulations, which were associated with a lack of standardization for assessing covariates across the regulatory agencies.

Conclusion: Additional pharmacokinetic parameters and consistency in guidelines across the regulatory bodies may improve bioequivalence assessments. Based on our findings, more research is also required to understand whether bioequivalence is an appropriate measure for determining MPH interchangeability. This critical review is suitable for formulation scientists, clinical pharmacologists, and clinicians.