Bioequivalence testing of a new tablet formulation of generic fluoxetine
The pharmacokinetics and relative bioavailability of fluoxetine capsules (reference) and tablets (test) were compared in 24 healthy subjects of both sexes after a single 20 mg oral dose of fluoxetine (as a hydrochloride salt).
A randomized, crossover design with a 2-week wash-out period between each dose was applied. Serum samples, obtained before dosing and at various appropriate time points up to 192 hours, were analyzed for fluoxetine and norfluoxetine content by a simple, accurate and precise HPLC method. ANOVA, power analysis, 90% confidence intervals (CI), and two one-sided tests were used for the statistical analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters.
The tolerability of the preparations was good. The respective point estimates of the ratios of the geometric means of log-Cmax and log-AUC0−∞ of fluoxetine were 0.912 and 0.935 with 90% of 0.838–0.992 and 0.857–1.020. The corresponding point estimates of norfluoxetine were 0.952 (90% CI=0.843−1.075) and 0.904 (90% CI=0.807−1.013), respectively.
Since both 90% CI for the AUC0−∞ and Cmax geometric mean ratios of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine were included in the 80% to 125% interval proposed by the FDA the test drug (fluoxetine tablets) was considered bioequivalent to the reference one (Prozac® capsules) according both to the rate and extent of absorption.
Keywordsbioequivalence generic drugs fluoxetine norfluoxetine relative bioavailability
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Aronofrf G.R., Bergstrom R.F., Pottratz S.T., Sloan R.S., Wolen R.L., Lemberger L. (1984): Fluoxetine kinetics and protein binding in normal and impaired renal function. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther., 36, 138–144.Google Scholar
- 7.Jannuzzi G., Gatti G., Magni P., Spina E., Pacifici R., Zuccaro P., Torta R., Guarneri L., Perucca E. (2002): Plasma concentrations of the enantiomers of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine: sources of variability and preliminary observations on relations with clinical response. Ther. Drug Monit. 24, 616–627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.The United States pharmacopoeia, 24th ed., Rockville, MD: United States Pharmacopoeial Convention, Inc., 2000, 1941–1943.Google Scholar
- 11.Guidance for industry, bioanalytical method validation (issued May 2001). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm.Google Scholar
- 14.Chow S.C., Liu J.P. Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies, 2nd ed., New York: Marcel Dekker, 2000, 57–78.Google Scholar
- 15.Guidance for Industry, Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products — general considerations (issued October 2000). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm.Google Scholar
- 19.Sutherland F.C., Badenhorst D., de Jager A.D., Scanes T., Hundt H.K., Swart K.J., Hundt A.F. (2001): Sensitive liquid chromatographic-tandem mass spectrometric method for the determination of fluoxetine and its primary active metabolite norfluoxetine in human plasma. J. Chromatogr. A. 914, 45–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Li C., Ji Z., Nan F., Shao Q., Liu P., Dai J., Zhen J., Yuan H., Xu F., Cui J., Huang B., Zhang M., Yu C. (2002): Liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry for the determination of fluoxetine and its main active metabolite norfluoxetine in human plasma with deuterated fluoxetine as internal standard. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 16, 1844–1850.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Pan, R.N., Chen, T.H., Shu-Hiu Huang, C., Hsiong C.H. (2002): Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalent study of generic fluoxetine capsules preparation. J. Food Drug Anal. 10, 13–17.Google Scholar
- 24.Guidance for industry, statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence (issued January 2001 ). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/ index.htm.Google Scholar