In vivo pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship and in vitro equivalence of two oral furosemide tablet formulations.

A randomized, cross-over, open study of bioequivalence between two different furosemide (CAS 54-31-9) formulations was performed; simultaneously, diuretic effects (urine output, sodium, potassium and chloride excretion) were also compared. Both products meet the British Pharmacopoeia specification and the results of a previous in vitro comparative study ensure equivalence of the two dissolution curves. Twenty-four healthy volunteers (male/female) participated in the bioequivalence study. Each treatment was given as a single 40-mg tablet following an overnight fast. Furosemide concentrations in plasma (measured by HPLC) and electrolyte amounts in urine were determined up to 12 h after treatment. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC0-infinity, Cmax and Cmax/AUC0-infinity were tested for bioequivalence after ln-transformation of data and ratios of tmax were evaluated nonparametrically. The parametric analysis revealed the following test/reference ratios and their 90% confidence intervals (90% CI): 1.06 (0.94-1.19) for AUC0-infinity, 1.12 (0.96-1.31) for Cmax, and 1.06 (0.97-1.16) for Cmax/AUC0-infinity. The 90% CI for tmax was 0.55-1.00. Bioequivalence between both formulations was concluded for all parameters except for tmax. No significant diuretic differences between both formulations (test and reference) were observed after drug administration in relation to the baseline period. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate showed a similar time-course after the drug administration and there were no differences between both formulations. Both products were well tolerated. It can be concluded that both formulations are equivalent in vitro and in vivo.

In vitro and in vivo equivalence of two oral atenolol tablet formulations.

A randomised, cross-over, open study of bioequivalence between two different atenolol (CAS 29122-68-7) tablet formulations is presented. An in vitro comparative study between the two formulations was also performed. Both products meet the USP 23 (United States Pharmacopea) specification. The values of similarity factor (f2) and difference factor (f1) obtained ensure sameness or equivalence of the two dissolution curves. Twenty-four healthy volunteers (male/female) participated in the bioequivalence study. Each treatment was given as a single 100-mg tablet following an overnight fast. Atenolol concentrations in plasma were determined up to 30 h after treatment by HPLC. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC0-infinity, Cmax and Cmax/AUC0-infinity were tested for bioequivalence after logarithmic transformation of data and ratios of tmax were evaluated nonparametrically. The parametric analysis revealed the following test/reference ratios and their 90% confidence intervals (90% CI): 1.06 (0.99-1.13) for AUC, 1.07 (0.97-1.18) for Cmax, and 0.99 (0.94-1.07) for Cmax/AUC0-infinity. The 90% CI for tmax was 0.91-1.23. All parameters showed bioequivalence between both formulations. A discrete fall in both systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure was observed after the drug administration. The fall extent (approximately 11 mmHg in supine position) and the time course of both parameters after the drug administration was similar for both formulations. Minimal values for SBP and DBP were achieved at 6 h after the drug administration for both formulations. Heart rates were also reduced after the administration of both formulations of atenolol in a similar extent (12 b.p.m.) and following a similar time profile (i.e. maximal reductions were observed between 1 and 3 h after the drug administration). It can be concluded that both formulations are equivalent in vitro and in vivo.