Bioequivalency of oral suspension formulations of cefixine

A study was performed in 24 healthy male subjects to establish that two suspension formulations of cefixime were bioequivalent to each other and to a reference oral solution. A single 400mg oral dose of the drug was given in a randomized three‐way crossover design as two suspensions (a research susp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Biopharmaceutics & drug disposition 1989-03, Vol.10 (2), p.205-211
Hauptverfasser: Faulkner, Robert D., Sia, Louisa L., Barone, Joseph S., Forbes, St. J., Silber, B. Michael
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 211
container_issue 2
container_start_page 205
container_title Biopharmaceutics & drug disposition
container_volume 10
creator Faulkner, Robert D.
Sia, Louisa L.
Barone, Joseph S.
Forbes, St. J.
Silber, B. Michael
description A study was performed in 24 healthy male subjects to establish that two suspension formulations of cefixime were bioequivalent to each other and to a reference oral solution. A single 400mg oral dose of the drug was given in a randomized three‐way crossover design as two suspensions (a research suspension (RS) used during clinical trials and a suspension intended for marketing (MS)) and a reference oral solution (SOL). Each dose was separated from the other by a 3‐day washout period. Mean peak serum concentrations (Cmax) were 4·67, 4·10, and 4·27 μg ml−1 after the MS, RS, and SOL, respectively. Although comparison (ANOVA) of the mean pharmacokinetic parameters for cefixime found significant differences (p < 0·05) in Cmax, the time to Cmax, and area under the serum concentration time curve (AUC 0∞) values among the three formulations, the mean differences were less than 20 per cent. No significant differences (p > 0·05) were found in either the elimination half‐life or renal clearance of unchanged drug. Overall, with a 98 per cent power to detect a 20 per cent difference in AUC0→∞ or urinary recovery values between the formulations tested, the results show that the MS was bioequivalent to the RS and that both suspensions were bioequivalent to the SOL.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/bdd.2510100209
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>istex_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_bdd_2510100209</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>ark_67375_WNG_R136PLCZ_Q</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3549-caf4d009014348b8d1385cf83fa85fc6abd27635d298d39ae4e6bc71965b100c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFj71PwzAQxS0EEqWwMmdgTTl_JTYbbaEgVXwJBGKxHMeWDGlS7Bba_55UQUVMTHene7939xA6xjDAAOS0KMsB4Rg2A8gd1MMgZQoCv-yiHmBGUpILso8OYnwDgAxj3ENnQ9_Yj6X_1JWtzTppXNIEXSVxGee2jr6pE9eE2bLSi7aPm72xzq98bQ_RntNVtEc_tY-eLi8eR1fp9HZyPTqfpoZyJlOjHSsBZPsBZaIQJaaCGyeo04I7k-miJHlGeUmkKKnUltmsMDmWGS_aKIb20aDzNaGJMVin5sHPdFgrDGoTVrXJ1W_yFjjpgLmORlcu6Nr4uKVywhiwvJXJTvblK7v-x1QNx-M_J9KO9XFhV1tWh3eV5TTn6vlmoh4wze6mo1d1T78BOwp4YA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bioequivalency of oral suspension formulations of cefixine</title><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Faulkner, Robert D. ; Sia, Louisa L. ; Barone, Joseph S. ; Forbes, St. J. ; Silber, B. Michael</creator><creatorcontrib>Faulkner, Robert D. ; Sia, Louisa L. ; Barone, Joseph S. ; Forbes, St. J. ; Silber, B. Michael</creatorcontrib><description>A study was performed in 24 healthy male subjects to establish that two suspension formulations of cefixime were bioequivalent to each other and to a reference oral solution. A single 400mg oral dose of the drug was given in a randomized three‐way crossover design as two suspensions (a research suspension (RS) used during clinical trials and a suspension intended for marketing (MS)) and a reference oral solution (SOL). Each dose was separated from the other by a 3‐day washout period. Mean peak serum concentrations (Cmax) were 4·67, 4·10, and 4·27 μg ml−1 after the MS, RS, and SOL, respectively. Although comparison (ANOVA) of the mean pharmacokinetic parameters for cefixime found significant differences (p &lt; 0·05) in Cmax, the time to Cmax, and area under the serum concentration time curve (AUC 0∞) values among the three formulations, the mean differences were less than 20 per cent. No significant differences (p &gt; 0·05) were found in either the elimination half‐life or renal clearance of unchanged drug. Overall, with a 98 per cent power to detect a 20 per cent difference in AUC0→∞ or urinary recovery values between the formulations tested, the results show that the MS was bioequivalent to the RS and that both suspensions were bioequivalent to the SOL.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0142-2782</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-081X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/bdd.2510100209</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BDDID8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>Antibacterial agents ; Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents ; Bioequivalence ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cefixime ; Medical sciences ; Oral cephalosporin ; Pharmacokinetics ; Pharmacology. Drug treatments ; Suspension</subject><ispartof>Biopharmaceutics &amp; drug disposition, 1989-03, Vol.10 (2), p.205-211</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 1989 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>1989 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3549-caf4d009014348b8d1385cf83fa85fc6abd27635d298d39ae4e6bc71965b100c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3549-caf4d009014348b8d1385cf83fa85fc6abd27635d298d39ae4e6bc71965b100c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fbdd.2510100209$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fbdd.2510100209$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=7244047$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Faulkner, Robert D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sia, Louisa L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barone, Joseph S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forbes, St. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silber, B. Michael</creatorcontrib><title>Bioequivalency of oral suspension formulations of cefixine</title><title>Biopharmaceutics &amp; drug disposition</title><addtitle>Biopharm. Drug Dispos</addtitle><description>A study was performed in 24 healthy male subjects to establish that two suspension formulations of cefixime were bioequivalent to each other and to a reference oral solution. A single 400mg oral dose of the drug was given in a randomized three‐way crossover design as two suspensions (a research suspension (RS) used during clinical trials and a suspension intended for marketing (MS)) and a reference oral solution (SOL). Each dose was separated from the other by a 3‐day washout period. Mean peak serum concentrations (Cmax) were 4·67, 4·10, and 4·27 μg ml−1 after the MS, RS, and SOL, respectively. Although comparison (ANOVA) of the mean pharmacokinetic parameters for cefixime found significant differences (p &lt; 0·05) in Cmax, the time to Cmax, and area under the serum concentration time curve (AUC 0∞) values among the three formulations, the mean differences were less than 20 per cent. No significant differences (p &gt; 0·05) were found in either the elimination half‐life or renal clearance of unchanged drug. Overall, with a 98 per cent power to detect a 20 per cent difference in AUC0→∞ or urinary recovery values between the formulations tested, the results show that the MS was bioequivalent to the RS and that both suspensions were bioequivalent to the SOL.</description><subject>Antibacterial agents</subject><subject>Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents</subject><subject>Bioequivalence</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cefixime</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Oral cephalosporin</subject><subject>Pharmacokinetics</subject><subject>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</subject><subject>Suspension</subject><issn>0142-2782</issn><issn>1099-081X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1989</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFj71PwzAQxS0EEqWwMmdgTTl_JTYbbaEgVXwJBGKxHMeWDGlS7Bba_55UQUVMTHene7939xA6xjDAAOS0KMsB4Rg2A8gd1MMgZQoCv-yiHmBGUpILso8OYnwDgAxj3ENnQ9_Yj6X_1JWtzTppXNIEXSVxGee2jr6pE9eE2bLSi7aPm72xzq98bQ_RntNVtEc_tY-eLi8eR1fp9HZyPTqfpoZyJlOjHSsBZPsBZaIQJaaCGyeo04I7k-miJHlGeUmkKKnUltmsMDmWGS_aKIb20aDzNaGJMVin5sHPdFgrDGoTVrXJ1W_yFjjpgLmORlcu6Nr4uKVywhiwvJXJTvblK7v-x1QNx-M_J9KO9XFhV1tWh3eV5TTn6vlmoh4wze6mo1d1T78BOwp4YA</recordid><startdate>198903</startdate><enddate>198903</enddate><creator>Faulkner, Robert D.</creator><creator>Sia, Louisa L.</creator><creator>Barone, Joseph S.</creator><creator>Forbes, St. J.</creator><creator>Silber, B. Michael</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198903</creationdate><title>Bioequivalency of oral suspension formulations of cefixine</title><author>Faulkner, Robert D. ; Sia, Louisa L. ; Barone, Joseph S. ; Forbes, St. J. ; Silber, B. Michael</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3549-caf4d009014348b8d1385cf83fa85fc6abd27635d298d39ae4e6bc71965b100c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1989</creationdate><topic>Antibacterial agents</topic><topic>Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents</topic><topic>Bioequivalence</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cefixime</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Oral cephalosporin</topic><topic>Pharmacokinetics</topic><topic>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</topic><topic>Suspension</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Faulkner, Robert D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sia, Louisa L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barone, Joseph S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forbes, St. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silber, B. Michael</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Biopharmaceutics &amp; drug disposition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Faulkner, Robert D.</au><au>Sia, Louisa L.</au><au>Barone, Joseph S.</au><au>Forbes, St. J.</au><au>Silber, B. Michael</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bioequivalency of oral suspension formulations of cefixine</atitle><jtitle>Biopharmaceutics &amp; drug disposition</jtitle><addtitle>Biopharm. Drug Dispos</addtitle><date>1989-03</date><risdate>1989</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>205</spage><epage>211</epage><pages>205-211</pages><issn>0142-2782</issn><eissn>1099-081X</eissn><coden>BDDID8</coden><abstract>A study was performed in 24 healthy male subjects to establish that two suspension formulations of cefixime were bioequivalent to each other and to a reference oral solution. A single 400mg oral dose of the drug was given in a randomized three‐way crossover design as two suspensions (a research suspension (RS) used during clinical trials and a suspension intended for marketing (MS)) and a reference oral solution (SOL). Each dose was separated from the other by a 3‐day washout period. Mean peak serum concentrations (Cmax) were 4·67, 4·10, and 4·27 μg ml−1 after the MS, RS, and SOL, respectively. Although comparison (ANOVA) of the mean pharmacokinetic parameters for cefixime found significant differences (p &lt; 0·05) in Cmax, the time to Cmax, and area under the serum concentration time curve (AUC 0∞) values among the three formulations, the mean differences were less than 20 per cent. No significant differences (p &gt; 0·05) were found in either the elimination half‐life or renal clearance of unchanged drug. Overall, with a 98 per cent power to detect a 20 per cent difference in AUC0→∞ or urinary recovery values between the formulations tested, the results show that the MS was bioequivalent to the RS and that both suspensions were bioequivalent to the SOL.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/bdd.2510100209</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0142-2782
ispartof Biopharmaceutics & drug disposition, 1989-03, Vol.10 (2), p.205-211
issn 0142-2782
1099-081X
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_bdd_2510100209
source Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects Antibacterial agents
Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents
Bioequivalence
Biological and medical sciences
Cefixime
Medical sciences
Oral cephalosporin
Pharmacokinetics
Pharmacology. Drug treatments
Suspension
title Bioequivalency of oral suspension formulations of cefixine
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T17%3A52%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-istex_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bioequivalency%20of%20oral%20suspension%20formulations%20of%20cefixine&rft.jtitle=Biopharmaceutics%20&%20drug%20disposition&rft.au=Faulkner,%20Robert%20D.&rft.date=1989-03&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=205&rft.epage=211&rft.pages=205-211&rft.issn=0142-2782&rft.eissn=1099-081X&rft.coden=BDDID8&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/bdd.2510100209&rft_dat=%3Cistex_cross%3Eark_67375_WNG_R136PLCZ_Q%3C/istex_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true