Dataset Information

Bioavailability study of dronabinol oral solution versus dronabinol capsules in healthy volunteers.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Dronabinol, a pharmaceutical ?-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, was originally developed as an oral capsule. This study evaluated the bioavailability of a new formulation, dronabinol oral solution, versus a dronabinol capsule formulation. METHODS:In an open-label, four-period, single-dose, crossover study, healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to one of two treatment sequences (T-R-T-R and R-T-R-T; T = dronabinol 4.25 mg oral solution and R = dronabinol 5 mg capsule) under fasted conditions, with a minimum 7-day washout period between doses. Analyses were performed on venous blood samples drawn 15 minutes to 48 hours postdose, and dronabinol concentrations were assayed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS:Fifty-one of 52 individuals had pharmacokinetic data for analysis. The 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (oral solution/capsule) for dronabinol was within the 80%-125% bioequivalence range for area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to last measurable concentration (AUC0-t) and AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC0-?). Maximum plasma concentration was also bioequivalent for the two dronabinol formulations. Intraindividual variability in AUC0-? was >60% lower for dronabinol oral solution 4.25 mg versus dronabinol capsule 5 mg. Plasma dronabinol concentrations were detected within 15 minutes postdose in 100% of patients when receiving oral solution and in <25% of patients when receiving capsules. CONCLUSION:Single-dose dronabinol oral solution 4.25 mg was bioequivalent to dronabinol capsule 5 mg under fasted conditions. Dronabinol oral solution formulation may provide an easy-to-swallow administration option with lower intraindividual variability as well as more rapid absorption versus dronabinol capsules.

SUBMITTER: Parikh N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5066862 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bioavailability study of dronabinol oral solution versus dronabinol capsules in healthy volunteers.

Parikh Neha N Kramer William G WG Khurana Varun V Cognata Smith Christina C Vetticaden Santosh S

Clinical pharmacology : advances and applications 20161012

<h4>Background</h4>Dronabinol, a pharmaceutical Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, was originally developed as an oral capsule. This study evaluated the bioavailability of a new formulation, dronabinol oral solution, versus a dronabinol capsule formulation.<h4>Methods</h4>In an open-label, four-period, single-dose, crossover study, healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to one of two treatment sequences (T-R-T-R and R-T-R-T; T = dronabinol 4.25 mg oral solution and R = dronabinol 5 mg capsule) under f ...[more]

PMID: 27785111

Similar Datasets

Project description:Dronabinol is a pharmaceutical tetrahydrocannabinol originally developed as an oral capsule. A dronabinol oral solution was recently approved, and the effects of food on absorption and bioavailability of the oral solution versus capsules were compared in an open-label, single-dose, 3-period crossover study. Healthy volunteers were randomized to either dronabinol oral solution 4.25 mg (fed) or dronabinol capsule 5 mg (fed or fasted). Dosing was separated by a 7-day washout period. Plasma pharmacokinetics were evaluated for dronabinol and its major metabolite, 11-hydroxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-OH-?9-THC). Pharmacokinetic data were available for analysis in 54 volunteers. In the fed state, initial dronabinol absorption was faster with oral solution versus capsule (mean time to the first measurable concentration, 0.15 vs 2.02 hours, respectively), with 100% and 15% of volunteers, respectively, having detectable plasma dronabinol levels 30 minutes postdose. There was less interindividual variability in plasma dronabinol concentration during early absorption with oral solution versus capsule. Compared with the fasted state, mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last measurable concentration (AUC0-t ) increased by 2.1- and 2.4-fold for dronabinol oral solution and capsule, respectively, when taken with food. Mean time to maximum plasma concentration was similarly delayed for dronabinol oral solution with food (7.7 hours) and capsule with food (5.6 hours) versus capsule with fasting (1.7 hours). Under fed conditions, AUC0-t and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity were similar for the oral solution versus capsule based on 11-OH-?9-THC levels. An appreciable food effect was observed for dronabinol oral solution and capsules. Dronabinol oral solution may offer therapeutic benefit to patients, given its rapid and lower interindividual absorption variability versus dronabinol capsule.

Project description:Background and objectiveAn orally disintegrating film (ODF) formulation of vitamin D3 that dissolves rapidly in the mouth without drinking or chewing may be a worthwhile alternative to currently available drug products for therapeutic vitamin D supplementation. This study aimed to compare the bioavailability of a single dose of a vitamin D3 25000 I.U. ODF with those of a marketed oral vitamin D3 preparation in healthy subjects.MethodsThis Phase 1, randomised, parallel-group, open-label study compared the pharmacokinetics of calcifediol [25(OH)D3], the precursor of bioactive vitamin D3, after a single dose of a new vitamin D3 25,000 I.U. ODF with those of a Reference formulation (vitamin D3 25000 I.U./2.5 mL oral solution) in healthy adult subjects using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay. The primary objective was bioavailability under fed conditions, defined as maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of 25(OH)D3 and area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to time t, the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-t). The pharmacokinetics of 25(OH)D3 were also evaluated following the ODF administration under fasting conditions. Subjects were randomised to receive a single dose of the vitamin D3 25000 I.U. ODF or the Reference oral solution under fed conditions or the vitamin D3 ODF under fasting conditions.ResultsForty-eight healthy subjects were randomised and completed the study. Overall, the pharmacokinetic profile was very similar across the three treatment groups, and bioavailability did not significantly differ among treatments. Under fed conditions, mean 25(OH)D3 plasma values for Cmax were 6.68 ± 2.03 versus 6.61 ± 2.62 ng/mL for the Test versus Reference formulations. Corresponding values for AUC0-t were 2364.80 ± 1336.97 versus 2150.52 ± 1622.76 ng/mL × h. Mean Cmax was slightly lower (6.68 ± 2.03 vs 7.23 ± 1.48 ng/mL) and the time to reach peak concentration was delayed (144 h [36-312] versus 42 h (2-480]) with the ODF under fed versus fasting conditions (p = 0.0371). The point estimates and 90 % CIs of the Testfed/Referencefed ratios of the geometric means showed that the bioavailability of exogenous 25(OH)D3 was, both in rate and extent of absorption, slightly higher with the vitamin D3 ODF than the vitamin D3 oral solution under the administration conditions recommended for the vitamin D3 oral solution. Palatability and ease of use of the ODF were satisfactory.ConclusionThe new ODF 25000 I.U. formulation provided a valuable alternative to the marketed oral solution for therapeutic vitamin D supplementation, with a bioavailability that was slightly higher than that of the vitamin D3 oral solution administered under the same conditions.Trial registrationThe study was retrospectively registered with the ISRCTN Registry (Registry code: ISRCTN13208948) on 27 November 2020.

Project description:BackgroundFibrosis is a response to chronic liver disease that results in excessive accumulation of extracellular matrix proteins and formation of scar tissue. Fibrosis represents a clinical challenge of worldwide significance. Several studies have demonstrated that many natural products and herbal medicines have activity against liver fibrosis, and extracts of milk thistle such as silymarin and silybin are the natural compounds most commonly prescribed for liver diseases. Therefore, we sought to assess and compare the pharmacokinetic properties and bioavailability of silybin-phosphatidylcholine complex in oily-medium soft-gel capsules and conventional silymarin tablets in healthy Mexican volunteers.MethodsWe enrolled 23 healthy volunteers to participate in a prospective, balanced, blind, single-dose, two-way crossover study with a one-week washout period. Fasting participants received either 45 mg silybin-phosphatidylcholine complex or 70 mg silymarin to assess which formulation provided better bioavailability of silybin. Plasma was obtained and analysed for silybin concentration using a validated ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy method. Pharmacokinetic parameters were obtained by non-compartmental analysis and values were compared by analysis of variance for a crossover design. Ratios of maximum plasma drug concentration and area under the curve (AUC) were obtained and 90% confidence intervals were calculated.ResultsThe 23 healthy subjects (11 women, 12 men) who participated in the study were aged 22-31 years old (average: 28), average weight 64.8 kg, height 1.65 m and body mass index 23.5 kg/m2. Plasma levels of silybin were higher after the administration of silybin-phosphatidylcholine complex capsules compared with that after conventional silymarin tablets (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe silybin-phosphatidylcholine complex in oily-medium soft-gel capsules seems to provide superior bioavailability. However, clinical studies must be performed to demonstrate its clinical relevance in the treatment of liver diseases.Trial registrationNCT03440164 ; registered on November 11, 2016.

Project description:BackgroundOral solution N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is an antidote for acetaminophen overdose, but its unpleasant taste and aroma can impede delivery even after the coadministration of antiemetic medications. Flavored effervescent NAC tablets dissolved in water might be a more palatable formulation than oral solution NAC diluted with soft drink.ObjectivesTo evaluate the relative bioavailability of these 2 formulations and assess subjective preferences between them.MethodsThirty healthy adult volunteers (mean [SD] = 35.2 [9.14] years) were enrolled in this open-label, randomized, single-dose, crossover study, with a 7-day washout period. Volunteers were randomized to receive 11 g effervescent test formulation or the reference product under fasting conditions, after which 19 serial blood samples were collected over 48 hours. Total plasma NAC concentrations were evaluated by LC-MS, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. The 2 formulations were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs of log-transformed ratios of pharmacokinetic parameters were within the predetermined bioequivalence range (80%-125%) established by the US Food and Drug Administration. Within 15 minutes of dosing, subjects were also asked to rank formulation attributes on a 5-point hedonic scale, with mean group differences analyzed by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Safety-profile assessment included treatment-emergent adverse events, physical examination, chemistry, and hematology parameters.ResultsThe concentration-versus-time profiles were similar for the 2 formulations, with mean Cmax of 26.5 μg/mL for effervescent NAC tablets and 28.4 μg/mL for oral solution NAC. The 90% CIs for the pharmacokinetic parameters met the criteria for concluding bioequivalence, and subjects preferred effervescent NAC tablets in terms of taste (P = 0.0247), flavor (P = 0.0082), texture (P = 0.009), and overall likeability (P = 0.0012), but there was no difference for smell (P = 0.0533). All treatment-emergent adverse events were mild, with no differences between the treatment groups.ConclusionsData from this study of a single dose of 11 g oral NAC demonstrated that effervescent NAC tablets and oral solution NAC met the regulatory criteria for bioequivalence in fasting healthy adult subjects. Effervescent NAC tablets appear to be a more palatable alternative for treatment of acetaminophen overdose. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02723669. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2016; 83C:1-7) © 2016 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Dataset Information

Bioavailability study of dronabinol oral solution versus dronabinol capsules in healthy volunteers.

Publications

Bioavailability study of dronabinol oral solution versus dronabinol capsules in healthy volunteers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets