Bioequivalence of Domestic and Imported Fenofibrate Capsules in Healthy Volunteers
Xinliang Liang, Yuhua Qin, Hongwei Zhao, Ding Zurui
Abstract
Xinliang Liang, Yuhua Qin, Hongwei Zhao, Ding Zurui
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bioequivalence of domestic and imported Fenofibrate capsules in healthy volunteers. METHODS: In double-period crossover study, 18 healthy volunteers received a single oral dose of domestic Fenofibrate capsule 200 mg (test capsule) and imported capsule 200 mg (reference capsule). The content of fenofibric acid in plasma was measured with HPLC. BECS pharmacokinetics program was used to calculate the pharmacokinetic parameters and bioavailability and to evaluate the bioequivalence of two preparations. RESULTS: The main pharmacokinetic parameters of domestic Fenofibrate capsule vs. imported Fenofibrate capsule were as follows: t1/2(21.34±3.31) h vs.(21.83±4.35) h, Cmax(7.31±2.65) mg·L-1 vs. (7.28±2.66) mg·L-1, tmax(4.72±0.57) h vs.(4.67±0.59) h, AUC0~72(170.09±54.06) mg·h·L-1 vs. (172.2±54.64) mg·h·L-1, AUC0~∞(188.56±55.27) mg·h·L-1 vs. (192.27±56.62) mg·h·L-1. The relative bioavailability F0~72 and F0~∞ of domestic Fenofibrate capsule were(98.87±6.76)% vs.(98.00±6.72)%, respectively. Non-parameter test of tmax and variance analysis and t-test of Cmax and AUC0~72 showed there was no statistical difference between 2 kinds of Fenofibrate capsules. The 90% confidential intervals of AUC0~72 and Cmax of test capsule were 83.3%~116.9% and 81.1%~124.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The domestic and imported Fenofibrate capsules are bioequivalent.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bioequivalence of domestic and imported Fenofibrate capsules in healthy volunteers. METHODS: In double-period crossover study, 18 healthy volunteers received a single oral dose of domestic Fenofibrate capsule 200 mg (test capsule) and imported capsule 200 mg (reference capsule). The content of fenofibric acid in plasma was measured with HPLC. BECS pharmacokinetics program was used to calculate the pharmacokinetic parameters and bioavailability and to evaluate the bioequivalence of two preparations. RESULTS: The main pharmacokinetic parameters of domestic Fenofibrate capsule vs. imported Fenofibrate capsule were as follows: t1/2(21.34±3.31) h vs.(21.83±4.35) h, Cmax(7.31±2.65) mg·L-1 vs. (7.28±2.66) mg·L-1, tmax(4.72±0.57) h vs.(4.67±0.59) h, AUC0~72(170.09±54.06) mg·h·L-1 vs. (172.2±54.64) mg·h·L-1, AUC0~∞(188.56±55.27) mg·h·L-1 vs. (192.27±56.62) mg·h·L-1. The relative bioavailability F0~72 and F0~∞ of domestic Fenofibrate capsule were(98.87±6.76)% vs.(98.00±6.72)%, respectively. Non-parameter test of tmax and variance analysis and t-test of Cmax and AUC0~72 showed there was no statistical difference between 2 kinds of Fenofibrate capsules. The 90% confidential intervals of AUC0~72 and Cmax of test capsule were 83.3%~116.9% and 81.1%~124.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The domestic and imported Fenofibrate capsules are bioequivalent.
Key concepts: Bioequivalence, Fenofibrate, Cmax, Capsule, Pharmacokinetics, Bioavailability, Crossover study, Medicine