Dataset Information

A Randomized, Open-Label, Bioequivalence Study of Lidocaine Topical System 1.8% and Lidocaine Patch 5% in Healthy Subjects.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:This study was designed to characterize drug delivery with lidocaine topical system 1.8% vs lidocaine patch 5% through 2 PK studies. Patients and Methods:Two Phase 1, single-center, open-label, randomized PK studies were performed in healthy adults. In Study 1, 56 subjects received a single intravenous bolus of 0.7 mg/kg of lidocaine as a lead-in to allow for the accurate determination of apparent dose of both products. After a 7-day washout period, subjects were randomized to receive either lidocaine topical system 1.8% or lidocaine patch 5% for 12 hours followed by another 7-day washout period, after which subjects crossed over to receive the other treatment for 12 hours. In Study 2, 54 subjects were randomized to receive either lidocaine topical system 1.8% or lidocaine patch 5% for 12 hours. After a 7-day washout period, subjects crossed over to receive the other treatment. Adhesion and skin irritation assessments were performed after application of the products in Study 2. In both studies, serial blood samples were collected to measure the plasma concentration of lidocaine after product application. Safety assessments and adverse events were monitored in both studies. Results:The comparative PK analysis demonstrated that the two products, despite their difference in drug load and strength, are bioequivalent. Both products were well tolerated. In Study 2, dermal response scores (skin tolerability after removal) were similar between lidocaine topical system 1.8% and lidocaine patch 5%, with a mean irritation score per patch <1 (barely perceptible erythema), which is not considered to be clinically significant. Conclusion:Bioequivalence was demonstrated between lidocaine topical system 1.8% and lidocaine patch 5%. A comparison of the single-time adhesion scores at 12 hours in Study 2 favored lidocaine topical system 1.8% over lidocaine patch 5%. Both products were well tolerated as a single application in healthy adult human subjects. ClinicalTrialsgov:NCT04144192, NCT04149938.

SUBMITTER: Gudin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7319520 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized, Open-Label, Bioequivalence Study of Lidocaine Topical System 1.8% and Lidocaine Patch 5% in Healthy Subjects.

Gudin Jeffrey J Argoff Charles C Fudin Jeffrey J Greuber Emileigh E Vought Kip K Patel Kalpana K Nalamachu Sri S

Journal of pain research 20200622

<h4>Purpose</h4>This study was designed to characterize drug delivery with lidocaine topical system 1.8% vs lidocaine patch 5% through 2 PK studies.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Two Phase 1, single-center, open-label, randomized PK studies were performed in healthy adults. In Study 1, 56 subjects received a single intravenous bolus of 0.7 mg/kg of lidocaine as a lead-in to allow for the accurate determination of apparent dose of both products. After a 7-day washout period, subjects were randomize ...[more]

PMID: 32606914

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThis study compares the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile, adhesion, and safety of lidocaine topical system 1.8%, a novel lidocaine topical system approved to treat postherpetic neuralgia, under conditions of heat and exercise vs normal conditions.Materials and methodsThis open-label, 3-period, 3-treatment crossover study randomized 12 healthy adults to receive three lidocaine topical systems 1.8% during each of three treatment periods, with 7-day washouts between treatments. The product was applied to the mid-lower back and was removed after 12 hours. During Treatment A, subjects exercised on a bicycle for 30 minutes at 0, 2.5, 5.5, and 8.5 hours. During Treatment B, heat (temperature set at 36.7-40.3°C) was applied at 0 and 8.5 hours. Treatment C was normal conditions. The PK profile of each subject under exercise and heat conditions was compared to normal conditions. Skin irritation, adhesion, and adverse events were assessed.ResultsTwelve subjects completed the study. Exposure to external heat resulted in increased peak plasma concentration of lidocaine with a mean Cmax of 160.3±100.1 ng/mL vs 97.6±36.9 ng/mL under normal conditions, with no effect on the extent of exposure (AUC). Concentrations returned to normal within 4 hours after the heat was removed. No clinically relevant differences in absorption were observed under exercise conditions with a mean Cmax of 90.5±25.4 ng/mL and no effect on the extent (AUC) of lidocaine exposure was observed relative to normal conditions. No systems detached during the study. Adverse events were mild, with none leading to discontinuation.ConclusionTransient heat exposure resulted in increased lidocaine plasma concentrations compared to normal conditions, whereas exercise had no effect. The effects of heat appear to be immediate, reversible, and below systemic therapeutic threshold in antiarrhythmic treatment (1000-1500 ng/mL), and well below the safe systemic threshold of 5000 ng/mL. Lidocaine topical system 1.8% remained adhered to the skin and was well tolerated under all conditions. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04150536.

Project description:BackgroundEzetimibe is a new class of antihyperlipidemic agent indicated for the prevention of atherosclerosis disease and for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Information on the pharmacokinetic profiles of ezetimibe tablet in healthy Chinese volunteers are lacking, and regulatory requirements necessitate a bioequivalence study of ezetimibe tablet versus Ezetrol® in China.MethodsA single-dose randomized, open-label, two-group, two-period crossover study was conducted in 59 healthy Chinese volunteers under fasting or fed conditions to assess the bioequivalence between two preparations. Eligible participants were randomly divided into fasted and fed groups. Blood samples were collected at specified time intervals, and the plasma concentrations of ezetimibe and ezetimibe glucuronide were determined by a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method. PK and bioavailability parameters were estimated via non-compartmental methods. Adverse events were also recorded.ResultsFifty-nine healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study. The main pharmacokinetic parameters of total ezetimibe in the plasma of the ezetimibe tablet (10 mg) and the Ezetrol® (10 mg) after a single fasting administration: Cmax were (65.73 ± 47.14), (71.32 ± 51.98) ng·mL- 1; Tmax were 1.75, 1.25 h; T½ were (17.09 ± 13.22), (17.35 ± 12.14) h; AUC0-t were (643.34 ± 400.77), (668.49 ± 439.57) h·ng·mL- 1; AUC0-∞ were (706.36 ± 410.92), (734.23 ± 468.26) h·ng·mL- 1. The main pharmacokinetic parameters of total ezetimibe in plasma of ezetimibe tablet (10 mg) and Ezetrol® (10 mg) after a fed administration: Cmax were (83.38 ± 38.95), (84.74 ± 34.62) ng·mL- 1; Tmax were 2.50, 2.50 h; T½ were (22.56 ± 12.68), (19.80 ± 15.59) h; AUC0-t were (494.21 ± 208.65), (536.69 ± 209.11) h·ng·mL- 1; AUC0-∞ were (573.74 ± 252.74), (604.75 ± 247.13) h·ng·mL- 1. The main pharmacokinetic parameters Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ of the two drugs were analyzed by variance analysis after logarithmic transformation. The total ezetimibe under fasting state with 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were 85.29 ~ 97.19, 90.41% ~ 104.38%, and 90.81 ~ 106.05%; total ezetimibe in fed state were 86.36% ~ 109.17, 84.96% ~ 96.40, and 85.32% ~ 101.0%. The 90% CIs of the ratio of geometric means (GMRs) of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ of Ezetrol® and ezetimibe tablet both fasting and fed conditions fell within the conventional bioequivalence criteria of 0.80-1.25. Both Cmax and AUC met the predetermined criteria for assuming bioequivalence. No severe adverse events were observed.ConclusionsThe test ezetimibe tablet and Ezetrol® were determined to be bioequivalent under both fasting and fed conditions in Chinese people.Trial registrationClinicaltrials, NCT05681247 (retrospectively registered in 11/01/ 2023).

Dataset Information

A Randomized, Open-Label, Bioequivalence Study of Lidocaine Topical System 1.8% and Lidocaine Patch 5% in Healthy Subjects.

Publications

A Randomized, Open-Label, Bioequivalence Study of Lidocaine Topical System 1.8% and Lidocaine Patch 5% in Healthy Subjects.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets