An eutomer/distomer ratio near unity does not justify non-enantiospecific assay methods in bioequivalence studies

Chirality

Volumn 17, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 470-475

  García Arieta, Alfredo ^a   Abad Santos, Francisco ^b   Rodríguez Martínez, M Angeles ^c   Varas Polo, Yolanda ^d   Novalbos, Jesús ^b   Laparidis, Nikos ^d   Gallego Sandín, Sonia ^b   Orfanidis, Kyriakos ^d   Torrado, Juan ^d  

^a Department of Human Use Medicines   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO DE LA PRINCESA   (Spain)

^c DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Bioequivalence; Chirality; Enantiomers; Ibuprofen; Pharmacokinetics

Indexed keywords

IBUPROFEN;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; BIOEQUIVALENCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DRUG DETERMINATION; ENANTIOMER; EUTOMER DISTOMER RATIO; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; NORMAL HUMAN; OPEN STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACEMIC MIXTURE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SINGLE DRUG DOSE; TABLET FORMULATION;

EID: 25844454605     PISSN: 08990042     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/chir.20186     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Mehvar R, Jamali F. Bioequivalence of chiral drugs. Stereospecific versus non-stereospecific methods. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997;33:122-141.
2. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA), Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. London: EMEA; 2001.
3. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA), Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Note for guidance on the investigation of chiral active substances. London: EMEA; 1993.
4. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Drug Evaluation and research (CDER). Guidance for industry on bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products-general considerations. Rockville, MD: FDA; 2003.
5. Geisslinger G, Stock KP, Bach GL, Loew D, Brune K. Pharmacological differences between R-(-) and S-(+)-ibuprofen. Agents Actions 1989;27:455-457.
6. Corpetti G, Rosignoli MT, Dionisio P. Comparative bioavailability study of two oral formulations of ibuprofen. Arzneimittelforschung 1998;48:392-395.
7. Davies NM. Clinical pharmacokinetics of ibuprofen. The first 30 years. Clin Pharmacokinet 1998;34:101-154.
8. Fornasini G, Monti N, Brogin G, Gallina M, Eandi M, Persiani S, Bani M, Della Pepa C, Zara G, Benedetti MS. Preliminary pharmacokinetic study of ibuprofen enantiomers after administration of a new oral formulation (ibuprofen arginine) to healthy male volunteers. Chirality 1997;9:297-302.
9. Jamali F, Singh NN, Pasutto FM, Russell AS, Coutts RT. Pharmacokinetics of ibuprofen enantiomers in man following oral administration of tablets with different absorption rates. Pharm Res 1988;5:40-43.
10. Saano V, Paronen P, Peura P, Vidgren M. Relative pharmacokinetics of three oral 400 mg ibuprofen dosage forms in healthy volunteers. Int J Clin Pharm Ther Toxicol 1991;29:381-385.
11. Walser S, Hruby R, Hesse E, Heinzl H, Mascher H. Preliminary toxicokinetic study with different crystal forms of S-(+)-ibuprofen (dexibuprofen) and R,S-ibuprofen in rats. Arzneimittelforschung 1997;47:750-754.
12. Chow SC, Liu JP. Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. 2nd edition, revised and expanded. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 2000.
13. Hauschke D, Steinijans VW, Diletti E. A distribution-free procedure for the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1990;28:72-78.
14. Jones B, Kenward MG. Design and analysis of cross-over trials, 2nd edition. Monographs on statistics and applied probability 98. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2003.
15. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Drug Evaluation and research (CDER), Division of Bioequivalence, Office of Generic Drugs. Statistical procedures for bioequivalence studies using a standard two-treatment cross-over design. Rockville, MD: FDA; 1992.
16. Mehvar R. Input rate-dependent stereoselective pharmacokinetics: effect of pulsatile oral input. Chirality 1994;6:185-195.
17. Jamali F. Stereochemistry and bioequivalence. J Clin Pharmacol 1992;32:930-934.
18. Hooper WP. Are enantioselective assay methods necessary for comparative bioavailability studies on racemic drugs? Proc West Pharmacol Soc 1993;36:167-171.
19. Nerurkar SG, Dighe SV, Williams RL. Bioequivalence of racemic drugs. J Clin Pharmacol 1992;32:935-943.
20. Midha KK, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. Bioequivalence: issues and options. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1997;25:743-752.
21. Midha KK, McKay G, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. The impact of stereoisomerism in bioequivalence studies. J Pharm Sci 1998;87:797-802.
22. Marzo A, Balant LP. Bioequivalence. An updated reappraisal addressed to applications of interchangeable multisource pharmaceutical products. Arzneimittelforschung 1995;45:109-115.
23. Karim A. Enantioselective assays in comparative bioavailability studies of racemic drug formulations: nice to know or need to know? J Clin Pharmacol 1996;36:490-499.
24. Boni JP, Korth-Bradley JM, Richards LS, Chiang ST, Hicks DR, Benet LZ. Chiral bioequivalence. Effect of absorption rate on racemic Etodolac. Clin Pharmacokinet 2000;39:459-469.
25. Brocks DR, Jamali F. Etodolac clinical pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1994;26:259-274.