Relative bioavailability of isoniazid in a fixed-dose combination product in healthy Mexican subjects

SETTING: Subtherapeutic plasma isoniazid (INH) concentrations and the development of bacterial resistance may be attributed to poor quality and reduced bioavailability of fixed-dose combination (FDC) formulations. The bioavailability of INH from a generic and that of a branded FDC formulation had no...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease Vol. 18; no. 1; pp. 49 - 54
Main Authors: Milán-Segovia, R. C., Vigna-Pérez, M., Romero-Méndez, M. C., Medellín-Garibay, S. E., Vargas-Morales, J. M., Magaña-Aquino, M., Romano-Moreno, S.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Paris, France International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 01-01-2014
International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:SETTING: Subtherapeutic plasma isoniazid (INH) concentrations and the development of bacterial resistance may be attributed to poor quality and reduced bioavailability of fixed-dose combination (FDC) formulations. The bioavailability of INH from a generic and that of a branded FDC formulation had not been compared in the Mexican population.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bioequivalence of a generic three-drug FDC formulation (3FDC) in comparison with a 3FDC reference with doses of 300 mg INH in 20 healthy Mexican adults, and to generate data regarding the oral relative bioavailability of the drug in this population.DESIGN: A single-dose, randomised-sequence, open-label, two-period crossover study.RESULTS: Both formulations were well tolerated. The pharmacokinetic parameters of INH showed wide inter-individual variability. The average relative bioavailability calculated for maximum serum concentration area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), AUC0-24h and AUC0-∞ of the test 3FDC formulation vs. the 3FDC reference were respectively 64.84% (90%CI 56.01-75.06), 59.05% (90%CI 50.27-69.36) and 57.26% (90%CI 46.93-69.84).CONCLUSIONS: The 3FDC test and reference formulations were not bioequivalent because the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratios did not meet the regulatory requirements for bioequivalence (range 80-125%) based on the rate and extent of absorption.
Bibliography:(R) Medicine - General
1027-3719(20140101)18:1L.49;1-
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-News-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ISSN:1027-3719
1815-7920
DOI:10.5588/ijtld.13.0266