Dataset Information

A Single-Dose, Crossover-Design Bioequivalence Study Comparing Two Nicotine Gum Formulations in Healthy Subjects.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) benefits smokers who wish to quit; nicotine gum represents one NRT. New formulations of nicotine gum have been developed to consider consumer preferences and needs. A new mint-flavored nicotine gum with a different texture was developed that may provide a more appealing taste and chewing experience. This study evaluated this new nicotine gum (2 and 4 mg strengths) for bioequivalence versus the original flavor sugar-free nicotine gum at corresponding dosages.

Methods

All subjects randomized in this crossover study received a single dose of all treatments, i.e., 2 and 4 mg doses of test and reference gums, separated by 2-7 days of washout between treatments. Subjects' maximal plasma nicotine concentration (C_max) and extent of nicotine absorption (AUC_0-t) following the administration of each treatment were calculated from plasma nicotine concentrations. Ratios of test/reference for C_max and AUC_0-t were calculated to evaluate bioequivalence between the two products.

Results

Both 2 and 4 mg doses of the new mint-flavored nicotine gum were bioequivalent to the dose-matched reference product as determined by the ratio of the geometric means and their 90% confidence intervals for C_max and AUC_0-t as well as secondary pharmacokinetic parameters. The safety profiles of the test and reference gums were similar; all treatments were well tolerated.

Conclusions

A new mint-flavored nicotine gum with modified taste and texture is bioequivalent to the original flavor sugar-free nicotine gum at both the 2 and 4 mg dosage strengths and has a similar safety profile.

Funding

GlaxoSmithKline.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01847443.

SUBMITTER: Du D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6096963 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLevamlodipine, a calcium channel blocker, has been show act as a cardiovascular drug. To compare the pharmacokinetic parameters between levamlodipine (test formulation) at a single dose of 5 mg and amlodipine (reference formulation) at a single dose of 10 mg, the bioequivalence study was carried out.MethodsA single-dose randomized, open-label, two-period crossover study was designed in healthy Chinese subjects. 48 subjects were divided into fasted and fed groups equally. The subjects randomly received the test or reference formulations at the rate of 1:1. Following a 21-day washout period, the alternative formulations were received. The blood samples were collected at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, 120, 144, 168 h later. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was applied to determine the plasma concentrations of levamlodipine. Adverse events were recorded.ResultsThe 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratio of geometric means (GMRs) of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ under both fasted and fed conditions were within the prespecified bioequivalence limits between 80 ~ 125%. Under fasted conditions, 24 subjects were enrolled and completed the study. The mean Cmax was (2.70 ± 0.49) ng/mL, AUC0-t was (141.32 ± 36.24) ng × h/mL and AUC0-∞ was (157.14 ± 45.65) ng × h/mL after a single dose of 5 mg levamlodipine. The mean Cmax was (2.83 ± 0.52) ng/mL, AUC0-t was (153.62 ± 33.96) ng × h/mL and AUC0-∞ was (173.05 ± 41.78) ng × h/mL after a single dose of 10 mg amlodipine. Under fed conditions, 24 subjects were enrolled and completed the study. The mean Cmax was (2.73 ± 0.55) ng/mL, AUC0-t was (166.93 ± 49.96) ng × h/mL and AUC0-∞ was (190.99 ± 70.89) ng × h/mL after a single dose of 5 mg levamlodipine. The mean Cmax was (2.87 ± 0.81) ng/mL AUC0-t was (165.46 ± 43.58) ng × h/mL and AUC0-∞ was (189.51 ± 64.70) ng × h/mL after a single dose of 10 mg amlodipine. Serious adverse event was not observed.ConclusionThe trial confirmed that levamlodipine at a single dose of 5 mg and amlodipine at a single dose of 10 mg were bioequivalent under both fasted condition and fed condition.Trial registrationCinicaltrials, NCT04411875 . Registered 3 June 2020 - Retrospectively registered.

Project description:IntroductionSimultaneous administration of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and clopidogrel has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acute coronary syndrome. Clopidogrel + ASA in a fixed-dose combination (FDC) provides a pharmaceutical option to enhance adherence to the coadministration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Herein, we evaluate the bioequivalence of enteric ASA and clopidogrel in an FDC compared with simultaneous administration of the individual formulations.MethodsThis study is a randomized, single-center, open-label, three-sequence, three-period, two-treatment, crossover study conducted in healthy Chinese male and female subjects under fed conditions. Subjects were randomized to receive, in each period, a single dose of (1) a combination tablet containing 75-mg clopidogrel and 100-mg enteric ASA (test formulation) or (2) coadministration of one 75-mg clopidogrel tablet and one 100-mg enteric-coated ASA tablet (reference formulations) under fed conditions. Plasma samples were analyzed for ASA, salicylic acid, clopidogrel, and the clopidogrel metabolite SR26334. For ASA, the reference-scaled average bioequivalence (RSABE) analysis was conducted for Cmax of ASA because within-subject standard deviation (SDW) was ≥ 0.294 for log-transformed Cmax.ResultsThe point estimate (test/reference geometric mean ratio) was between 0.80 and 1.25, and the upper one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the scaled average bioequivalence metric was ≤ 0 (-0.08). AUC of ASA as SDW was < 0.294 for log-transformed AUClast and AUC. Estimates of 90% CIs for log-transformed AUClast and AUC ratios were within the bioequivalence range of 0.80 to 1.25 (0.98-1.08 and 1.00-1.10, respectively). For clopidogrel, the 90% CIs for the ratios comparing log-transformed Cmax, AUClast, and AUC ratios of clopidogrel following administration of test versus reference formulation were calculated using the ABE method and were well within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 (1.02-1.12, 0.92-0.99, and 0.92-0.98, respectively).ConclusionFDC of ASA and clopidogrel was bioequivalent to the simultaneous administration of the individual formulations in healthy Chinese subjects under fed conditions.Trial registrationCTR20190376.