2015PubMedRequires access

Comparative Fasting Bioavailability of 2 Cilostazol Formulations in Healthy Thai Volunteers: An Open-Label, Single-Dose, Randomized, 2-Way Crossover Study.

Pinpilai Jutasompakorn, Supornchai Kongpatanakul, Piyapat Pongnarin, Korbtham Sathirakul, Somruedee Chatsiricharoenkul

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bioequivalence of50 mg cilostazol tablets manufactured locally (Citazol®) and originally (Pletaal®) in healthy Thai volunteers. MATERIAL AND METHOD: An open-label, single dose, randomized, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study in 30 healthy volunteers. Each volunteer received a 50 mg cilostazol tablet of bothformulations with a washoutperiodofat least 14 days. Blood samples were obtained atpre-dose and over 48 hours after dosing. Cilostazolplasma concentrations were quantified by using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). RESULTS: The 30 volunteers completed the entire study. The geometric mean ratios (GAM) (test/reference) between the two formulations of cilostazol were 112.38% (101.70%-124.19%) for Cmax; 103.66% (96.06%-111.86%) for AUC0-48; and 95.14% (86.12%-105.12%)forAUC0-∞. There was no statistical difference ofthe Tmax between the twoformulations (p>0.05). No serious adverse events related to the studied drugs were found. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in the analyzed pharmacokineticparameters was found between the twoformulations of 50 mg cilostazol tablets. Therefore, it can be concluded that these two cilostazol tablet formulations were considered bioequivalent.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bioequivalence of50 mg cilostazol tablets manufactured locally (Citazol®) and originally (Pletaal®) in healthy Thai volunteers. MATERIAL AND METHOD: An open-label, single dose, randomized, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study in 30 healthy volunteers. Each volunteer received a 50 mg cilostazol tablet of bothformulations with a washoutperiodofat least 14 days. Blood samples were obtained atpre-dose and over 48 hours after dosing. Cilostazolplasma concentrations were quantified by using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). RESULTS: The 30 volunteers completed the entire study. The geometric mean ratios (GAM) (test/reference) between the two formulations of cilostazol were 112.38% (101.70%-124.19%) for Cmax; 103.66% (96.06%-111.86%) for AUC0-48; and 95.14% (86.12%-105.12%)forAUC0-∞. There was no statistical difference ofthe Tmax between the twoformulations (p>0.05). No serious adverse events related to the studied drugs were found. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in the analyzed pharmacokineticparameters was found between the twoformulations of 50 mg cilostazol tablets. Therefore, it can be concluded that these two cilostazol tablet formulations were considered bioequivalent.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bioequivalence of50 mg cilostazol tablets manufactured locally (Citazol®) and originally (Pletaal®) in healthy Thai volunteers. MATERIAL AND METHOD: An open-label, single dose, randomized, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study in 30 healthy volunteers. Each volunteer received a 50 mg cilostazol tablet of bothformulations with a washoutperiodofat least 14 days. Blood samples were obtained atpre-dose and over 48 hours after dosing. Cilostazolplasma concentrations were quantified by using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). RESULTS: The 30 volunteers completed the entire study. The geometric mean ratios (GAM) (test/reference) between the two formulations of cilostazol were 112.38% (101.70%-124.19%) for Cmax; 103.66% (96.06%-111.86%) for AUC0-48; and 95.14% (86.12%-105.12%)forAUC0-∞. There was no statistical difference ofthe Tmax between the twoformulations (p>0.05). No serious adverse events related to the studied drugs were found. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in the analyzed pharmacokineticparameters was found between the twoformulations of 50 mg cilostazol tablets. Therefore, it can be concluded that these two cilostazol tablet formulations were considered bioequivalent.

Key concepts: Cilostazol, Bioequivalence, Medicine, Crossover study, Bioavailability, Cmax, Volunteer, Dosing

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparative Fasting Bioavailability of 2 Cilostazol Formulations in Healthy Thai Volunteers: An Open-Label, Single-Dose, Randomized, 2-Way Crossover Study. — Research Paper | ScholarLens