Acarbose bioequivalence: Exploration of eligible protocol design

What is known and objective Acarbose is a poorly absorbed α‐glucosidase inhibitor that acts locally in the intestinal tract. Therefore, the evaluation of its bioequivalence (BE) should be based on pharmacodynamic (PD) rather than pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints. Currently, there is no consensus on the best method for acarbose BE evaluation. The optimal protocol design regarding dosing time/dose and PD parameters requires further exploration. The aim of the study was to identify an optimum protocol for establishing acarbose BE in healthy Chinese volunteers using PD endpoints. Methods Three pilot studies were conducted in healthy Chinese subjects. Study 1 was an open, randomized, two‐period crossover study using the reference (R) drug at the dose of 1 × 50 mg. Study 1 aimed to determine appropriate dosing time by comparing the PD effect of acarbose between two administration methods. One method was concomitant administration of sucrose and acarbose, and another method was acarbose administration 10 min before sucrose. Study 2 was an open, randomized, three‐period crossover study. Subjects were given the R drug at the dose of 1 × 50 mg, 2 × 50 mg or 3 × 50 mg in a random sequence. The aim of Study 2 was to identify a reasonable dose of acarbose in the BE study. Study 3 was conducted with an open, randomized, three‐period crossover design using the test (T) or R drug in an R‐T‐R sequence at the dose of 2 × 50 mg. Study 3 aimed to compare the BE between the R and T drug and determine intra‐individual variation. Twelve subjects were recruited in Study 1, Study 2 and Study 3, respectively, with a one‐week washout period. Serum glucose and insulin concentrations were determined after sucrose administration (baseline) and sucrose/acarbose co‐administration. Results and discussion In Study 1, no significant differences in PD parameters were found between the two administration methods. The results of Study 2 revealed that the optimal dose was between 1 × 50 mg and 2 × 50 mg. The comparison of PD parameters indicated that the rectifying method could distinguish between different formulations. Study 3 showed that the geometric mean ratios of Cmax,r, AUC0–2 h,r and AUC0–4 h,r were 90.06%, 84.55% and 84.21%, respectively, using the rectifying method. The 90% CIs of Cmax,r were within acceptance limits (80.00%–125.00%), whereas that of AUC0–2 h,r and AUC0–4 h,r were out of the range. The intra‐individual variation was approximately 21% for R formulation. Based on the vari