Cargando…

Comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers

PURPOSE: The primary aim of the present study was to assess the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence between a generic formulation of meloxicam 15 mg tablets (Meloxicam Hexal) and its respective brand product (Mobic), in order to verify whether the generic product conforms to the regulatory standards of b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tacca, Mario Del, Pasqualetti, Giuseppe, Gori, Giovanni, Pepe, Pasquale, Di Paolo, Antonello, Lastella, Marianna, De Negri, Ferdinando, Blandizzi, Corrado
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3726593/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23901278
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S39024
_version_ 1782278668381323264
author Tacca, Mario Del
Pasqualetti, Giuseppe
Gori, Giovanni
Pepe, Pasquale
Di Paolo, Antonello
Lastella, Marianna
De Negri, Ferdinando
Blandizzi, Corrado
author_facet Tacca, Mario Del
Pasqualetti, Giuseppe
Gori, Giovanni
Pepe, Pasquale
Di Paolo, Antonello
Lastella, Marianna
De Negri, Ferdinando
Blandizzi, Corrado
author_sort Tacca, Mario Del
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The primary aim of the present study was to assess the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence between a generic formulation of meloxicam 15 mg tablets (Meloxicam Hexal) and its respective brand product (Mobic), in order to verify whether the generic product conforms to the regulatory standards of bioequivalence in the postmarketing setting. As a secondary exploratory aim, the pharmacodynamic effects of the two formulations were also evaluated by means of rating scales following hyperalgesia induced by cutaneous freeze injury. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A single 15 mg dose of generic or branded meloxicam tablets was administered to 24 healthy male volunteers in a crossover fashion. Plasma samples, collected for 24 hours after dosing, were assayed for meloxicam concentration by a validated highperformance liquid chromatography method. RESULTS: The analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters did not show any significant difference between the two meloxicam formulations: the 90% confidence intervals fell within the acceptance range of 80%–125% (0.84–1.16 for area under the curve [0–24], and 0.89–1.23 for peak concentration). No difference in the pharmacodynamic end point was observed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetic profiles of the two meloxicam formulations confirm the regulatory criteria for bioequivalence; pharmacodynamic data indicate a similar antihyperalgesic effect. The two formulations can be used interchangeably in the clinical setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3726593
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37265932013-07-30 Comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers Tacca, Mario Del Pasqualetti, Giuseppe Gori, Giovanni Pepe, Pasquale Di Paolo, Antonello Lastella, Marianna De Negri, Ferdinando Blandizzi, Corrado Ther Clin Risk Manag Original Research PURPOSE: The primary aim of the present study was to assess the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence between a generic formulation of meloxicam 15 mg tablets (Meloxicam Hexal) and its respective brand product (Mobic), in order to verify whether the generic product conforms to the regulatory standards of bioequivalence in the postmarketing setting. As a secondary exploratory aim, the pharmacodynamic effects of the two formulations were also evaluated by means of rating scales following hyperalgesia induced by cutaneous freeze injury. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A single 15 mg dose of generic or branded meloxicam tablets was administered to 24 healthy male volunteers in a crossover fashion. Plasma samples, collected for 24 hours after dosing, were assayed for meloxicam concentration by a validated highperformance liquid chromatography method. RESULTS: The analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters did not show any significant difference between the two meloxicam formulations: the 90% confidence intervals fell within the acceptance range of 80%–125% (0.84–1.16 for area under the curve [0–24], and 0.89–1.23 for peak concentration). No difference in the pharmacodynamic end point was observed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetic profiles of the two meloxicam formulations confirm the regulatory criteria for bioequivalence; pharmacodynamic data indicate a similar antihyperalgesic effect. The two formulations can be used interchangeably in the clinical setting. Dove Medical Press 2013 2013-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC3726593/ /pubmed/23901278 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S39024 Text en © 2013 Del Tacca et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Tacca, Mario Del
Pasqualetti, Giuseppe
Gori, Giovanni
Pepe, Pasquale
Di Paolo, Antonello
Lastella, Marianna
De Negri, Ferdinando
Blandizzi, Corrado
Comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers
title Comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers
title_full Comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers
title_fullStr Comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers
title_full_unstemmed Comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers
title_short Comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers
title_sort comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3726593/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23901278
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S39024
work_keys_str_mv AT taccamariodel comparativepharmacokineticandpharmacodynamicevaluationofbrandedandgenericformulationsofmeloxicaminhealthymalevolunteers
AT pasqualettigiuseppe comparativepharmacokineticandpharmacodynamicevaluationofbrandedandgenericformulationsofmeloxicaminhealthymalevolunteers
AT gorigiovanni comparativepharmacokineticandpharmacodynamicevaluationofbrandedandgenericformulationsofmeloxicaminhealthymalevolunteers
AT pepepasquale comparativepharmacokineticandpharmacodynamicevaluationofbrandedandgenericformulationsofmeloxicaminhealthymalevolunteers
AT dipaoloantonello comparativepharmacokineticandpharmacodynamicevaluationofbrandedandgenericformulationsofmeloxicaminhealthymalevolunteers
AT lastellamarianna comparativepharmacokineticandpharmacodynamicevaluationofbrandedandgenericformulationsofmeloxicaminhealthymalevolunteers
AT denegriferdinando comparativepharmacokineticandpharmacodynamicevaluationofbrandedandgenericformulationsofmeloxicaminhealthymalevolunteers
AT blandizzicorrado comparativepharmacokineticandpharmacodynamicevaluationofbrandedandgenericformulationsofmeloxicaminhealthymalevolunteers