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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Biopharmaceutics & drug disposition 1989-03, Vol.10 (2), p.205-211 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 < 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.</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 & 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 & drug disposition, 1989-03, Vol.10 (2), p.205-211</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 1989 John Wiley & 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&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 & 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 < 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.</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 & 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 & 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 & 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 < 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.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>John Wiley & 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 |