RESUMO
Cardizem SR and Bi-Tildiem were both approved in their respective countries on the basis of clinical trials demonstrating efficacy and safety in the treatment of angina pectoris. In this cross-over randomized study, we assessed whether these two sustained-release formulations of diltiazem have equivalent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Twenty-four young healthy male volunteers were hooked to Holters and ambulatory blood pressure monitors for 24 h to establish baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), sinus rate and PR intervals. They then received a single dose of 120 mg of diltiazem from one formulation. The pharmacodynamic measurements were recorded for a further 24 h and blood samples were collected over 36 h for evaluation of diltiazem in plasma by a high-performance liquid chromatogrpahic (HPLC) method. The procedures were repeated with the alternate formulation after a 7 d wash-out. Pharmacokinetics showed statistically significant (p < 0.01) differences in AUC0-12 with means (+/- SD) of 519.2(+/- 172.8) and 429.6(+/- 147.2) ng h ml-1, AUC0-36 of 835.6(+/- 281.6) and 730.9 (+/- 271.5) ng h ml-1 and Cmax of 89.1(+/- 30.3) and 61.1(+/- 21.2) ng ml-1 for Cardizem SR and Bi-Tildiem, respectively. The only pharmacodynamic parameter showing a statistically significant difference in change from baseline between the two formulations was DBP with mean (+/- SD) change in AUC0-12 of -13.6(+/- 20.8) and +8.4(+/- 31.7) mm Hg h (p = 0.0135) and in AUC0-24 of -33.0(+/- 43.7) and -0.3(+/- 59.2) mm Hg h (p = 0.0463) for Cardizem SR and Bi-Tildiem, respectively. These findings suggest that assessment of efficacy of sustained-release formulations of diltiazem by bioequivalence could be misleading. They also confirm that a single dose of diltiazem does not elicit a significant pharmacodynamic response in healthy volunteers. Equivalence for such formulations should therefore be demonstrated by pharmacodynamic evaluation or clinical studies in a patient population.
