PDF herunterladen
Arzneimittelforschung 2009; 59(4): 171-175
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1296382
Antiemetics · Gastrointestinal Drugs · Uricosuric Drugs · Urologic Drugs
Editio Cantor Verlag Aulendorf (Germany)

Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Study of Two Different Omeprazole Capsule Formulations in Healthy Bangladeshi Volunteers

Jafreen Jamal Joti
1   Department of Pharmacy, University of Asia Pacific, Dhaka, (Bangladesh)
,
Kamrun Nahar
1   Department of Pharmacy, University of Asia Pacific, Dhaka, (Bangladesh)
,
Ahasanul Hasan
2   Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, (Bangladesh)
,
Mohammad Abul Kalam Azad
3   Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, (Bangladesh)
,
Md Ashik Ullah
2   Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, (Bangladesh)
,
S M. Ashraful Islam
1   Department of Pharmacy, University of Asia Pacific, Dhaka, (Bangladesh)
,
Abul Hasnat
2   Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, (Bangladesh)
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
13. Dezember 2011 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Omeprazole (CAS 73590-58-6) effectively suppresses the gastric acid secretion in the parietal cells of the stomach and is a widely prescribed proton pump inhibitor in Bangladesh. The increasing number of omeprazole containing products available in the market raises questions of therapeutic equivalence and/or generic substitution which are yet to be conducted with Bangladeshi population. The aim of the study is to assess the bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic properties of two oral formulations of 20 mg omeprazole capsule, the reference product and Omep-20 as test product using serum data. The randomized, two-way crossover study was conducted on 24 healthy male subjects in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and ICH guidelines. Subjects were assigned to receive test and reference as a single dose of 20 mg capsule under fasting condition, following a washout period of one week. After oral administration, blood samples were collected at various time intervals and analyzed for omeprazole concentrations using a validated HPLC method. The pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by non-compartmental method. From serum data, the obtained values for test and reference products were 648.07 ± 216.27 and 632.69 ± 257.01 ng/ml for Cmax; 2 012.24 ± 634.48 and 1907.86 ± 761.91 ng · h/ml for AUC0–24; 2105.21 ± 623.79 and 1 979.18 ± 748.12 ng · h/ml for AUC0–∞ respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed between two formulations by analyzing different pharmacokinetic parameters in terms of period, sequence or formulation. From the paired t-test, no significant differences between two formulation were observed (p > 0.05). The 90% confidence intervals of Cmax, AUC0–24 and AUC0–24 were found to be 91.59% to 122.60%, 101.86% to 116.78% and 102.77% to 116.68% respectively which are within the FDA accepted limits for bioequivalence (80%–125%). Finally it can be concluded that both products are bioequivalent in terms of rate and extent of drug absorption and therefore interchangeable.

Key words

CAS 73590-58-6 - Gastric disorders - Omep-20 - Omeprazole, Bangladeshi population, bioequivalence, pharmacokinetics - Proton pump inhibitors
 

  • References

  • 1 Barrison AF, Jarboe LA, Weinberg BM, Nimmagadda K, Sullivan LM, Wolfe MM. Patterns of proton pump inhibitor use in clinical practice. Am J Med. 2001; 111: 469-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Howden CW, Henning IM, Huang B, Lukasik N, Freston JW. Management of heartburn in a large, randomized, community-based study: comparison of four therapeutic strategies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001; 96: 1704-1710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Caro JJ, Salas M, Ward A. Healing and relapse rates in gastroesophageal reflux disease treated with the newer proton-pump inhibitors lansoprazole, rabeprazole, and panto-prazole compared with omeprazole, ranitidine, and placebo: evidence from randomized clinical trials. Clin Ther. 2001; 23: 998-1017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Clissold SP, Campoli-Richards DM. Omeprazole: A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential in peptic ulcer disease and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. Drugs. 1986; 32: 15-47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Watanabe K, Furuno K, Eto K, Oishi R, Gomita Y. First-pass metabolism of omeprazole in rats. J Pharm Sci. 1994; 83: 1131-1134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mihaly GW, Prichard PJ, Smallwood RA, Yeomans ND, Louis WJ. Simultaneous high performance liquid chromatographic analysis of omeprazole and its sulphone and sulphide metabolites in human serum and urine. J Chro-matogr. 1983; 278: 311-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lagerstrom PO, Persson BA. Determination of omeprazole and metabolites in serum and urine by liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr. 1984; 309: 347-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Prichard PJ, Yeomans ND, Mihaly GW, Jones DB, Buckle PJ. Omeprazole: a study of its inhibition of gastric pH and oral pharmacokinetics after morning or evening dosage. Gastroenterol. 1985; 88: 64-49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Regardh CG, Gabrielsson M, Hoffma KJ, Lofberg I, Skan-berg I. Pharmacokinetics and metabolism of omeprazole in animals and man, an overview. Scand J Gastroenterol suppl. 1985; 108: 79-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Colin WH. Clinical pharmacology of omeprazole. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1991; 20: 38-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mctavish D, Buckley MMT, Heel RC. Omeprazole. Drugs. 1991; 42: 138-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sohn DR, Kbayashi K, Chiba K, Lee K, Shin SG, Ishizaki T. Disposition kinetics and metabolism of omeprazole in extensive and poor metabolizers of S-mephenytoin 4 hydro-xylation recruited from and oriental population. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1992; 262: 1195-1202
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Savarino V, Mela GS, Zentilin P, Cutela P, Mele MR, Vigneri S et al Variability in individual response to various doses of omeprazole; implications for antiulcer therapy. Dig Dis Sci. 1994; 39: 161-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Katashima M, Yamamoto K, Sugiura M, Sawada Y, IgA T. Comparative pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study of proton pump inhibitors, omeprazole and lansoprazole in rats. Drug Metab Dispos. 1995; 23 (7) 718-723
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, International Conference on Harmonization - World Health Organization. Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (EMEA website). ICH topic E6. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2002 www.emea.europa.eu Accessed January 10 2008
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects [WMA Web site]. Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964, and amended by the 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 7 2000 www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm Accessed January 10 2008
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Azad MAK, Ullah A, Latif AHMM, Hasnat A. Bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic study of two oral formulations of ciprofloxacin capsules in healthy male volunteers. J Appl Res. 2007; 7 (2) 150-157
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 FDA Guidance for Industry. Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Orally Administered Drug Products. Rock-ville, MD: Office of Generic Drugs, Division of Bioequivalence, US Food and Drug Administration 2003
    PubMed
  • 19 Jones B, Kenward GM. Design and Analysis of Cross over Trails. 2nd ed Champman and Hall/CRC; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Hauschke D, Steinijans VW, Diletti E. Update on the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1992; 28: 105-110
    PubMedGoogle Scholar