The study was designed to compare the rate and extent of absorption of two fixed dose combination tablet formulations of lopinavir (CAS 192725-17-0) and ritonavir (CAS 155213-67-5). This bioequivalence study was conducted using a standard preparation as reference and a generic alternative as test in 72 adult healthy volunteers within 18-45 years of age who received a single dose of the test or reference product under fasting conditions. A washout period of 10 d was maintained between period I and period II dosing. After dosing, blood samples were collected from 0 h (pre-dose) to 72 h postdose administration. Lopinavir and ritonavir were quantified using a validated LC-MS/MS method. The data obtained for each subject was evaluated for primary pharmacokinetic variables C(max), AUC(0-72), and AUC(0-Inf) with respect to % ratio and 90% confidence interval for log-transformed data. The 90% confidence intervals (obtained by analysis of variance, ANOVA) were well within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%. Thus, it can be concluded that the evaluated formulations are bioequivalent in terms of rate and extent of absorption. The safety profiles of both the test and reference formulations were comparable.

The study was designed to compare the rate and extent of absorption of a fixed dose combination tablet of lamivudine (CAS 134678-17-4) and stavudine (CAS 3056-17-5) with the concurrent administration of lamivudine tablet and stavudine capsule in 24 healthy volunteers under fasting conditions. The volunteers were randomly assigned to the test or reference treatment, with the two treatment periods separated by a washout period of at least 7 days. Plasma samples were analyzed for both analytes lamivudine and stavudine by a validated analytical method. Since the 90% confidence intervals for the "test/reference" mean ratio of the In-transformed pharmacokinetic variables C(max) AUC(0-t) and AUC(0-infinity) were clearly within the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%, the two treatments were considered bioequivalent. The safety profiles of both the test and reference formulations were comparable.

The study was conducted in order to assess the bioequivalence of three capsule formulations containing 100 mg of ciclosporin (CAS 59865-13-3). 24 Healthy volunteers, 20 to 37 years of age (mean 26, SD 5.3 years), weighing 51 to 76 kg (mean 65, SD 7.0 kg) and a body height of 1.5 to 1.83 m (mean 1.68, SD 0.07 m) were enrolled in the study. Each volunteer received a single oral dose of 300 mg (3 100 mg ciclosporin capsules) on three separate occasions according to a randomized, single-dose, three-way crossover design with three formulations of ciclosporin: Treatment I (reference formulation, capsules), Treatment II (test formulation 1, soft gel capsules), Treatment III (test formulation 2, hard gel capsules). Blood samples for the determination of ciclosporin were drawn at scheduled intervals up to 56 h after dosing. Ciclosporin concentrations in whole blood were determined by a specific HPLC method with ultraviolet detection. Quantitation of ciclosporin was validated for concentrations range from 25 to 1600 ng/ml. Since the 90% confidence intervals for the ?test/reference? mean ratio of the Log-transformed pharmacokinetic variables Cmax, AUC0?t and AUC0?? were clearly within the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%, the treatments were considered bioequivalent in terms of both the rate and extent of absorption.

No abstract

No abstract