Cargando…
Capsule and Sprinkle Formulations of Lubiprostone Are Not Biologically Similar in Patients with Functional Constipation
INTRODUCTION: Lubiprostone capsules are approved for managing three different chronic constipation conditions. A “sprinkle” formulation may facilitate use in individuals with difficulty swallowing capsules. Our objective was to evaluate the bioequivalence, pharmacokinetics (PK), and bioavailability...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8190023/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33834354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01707-9 |
_version_ | 1783705605130682368 |
---|---|
author | Adams, Atoya Barish, Charles Chen, Angel Dennis, Patrick Krause, Richard Lichtlen, Peter Losch-Beridon, Taryn Mareya, Shadreck Schneider, Jeffrey |
author_facet | Adams, Atoya Barish, Charles Chen, Angel Dennis, Patrick Krause, Richard Lichtlen, Peter Losch-Beridon, Taryn Mareya, Shadreck Schneider, Jeffrey |
author_sort | Adams, Atoya |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Lubiprostone capsules are approved for managing three different chronic constipation conditions. A “sprinkle” formulation may facilitate use in individuals with difficulty swallowing capsules. Our objective was to evaluate the bioequivalence, pharmacokinetics (PK), and bioavailability of lubiprostone sprinkles vs lubiprostone capsules, compared with placebo. METHODS: A 1-week randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, bioequivalence study (study 302) and a single-dose PK and bioavailability crossover study (study 304) were conducted. In study 302, 522 subjects with chronic constipation were randomized to lubiprostone sprinkle 24 μg twice daily (BID), lubiprostone capsule 24 μg BID, or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was observed spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) counts (equivalence defined as showing the 90% confidence interval [CI] of the “between-group SBM ratio” to be contained within 0.8–1.25). Study 304 included two cohorts of healthy volunteers randomized to a single 48-μg lubiprostone dose, sprinkle, or capsule (n = 35) or to a single 48-μg sprinkle dose, in fed or fasted state (n = 14). RESULTS: Both lubiprostone formulations significantly improved SBM count (sprinkle, 4.82 ± 3.66, P = 0.002; capsule, 5.74 ± 3.79, P < 0.0001) vs placebo (3.68 ± 2.16), but equivalent efficacy was not demonstrated, with a 90% CI for the SBM count ratio of 0.69–0.95. Quantifiable PK data on lubiprostone were limited; however, overall exposure to the M3 metabolite was approximately 44% higher with sprinkles vs capsules under fasted conditions (geometric mean ratio 1.441 [90% CI, 1.166, 1.782]), and exposure with the sprinkle formulation was 11% lower in the fed state vs the fasted state (geometric mean ratio 0.888 [90% CI, 0.675, 1.168]). Both formulations were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Despite the significant improvement in SBM counts vs placebo, the sprinkle formulation did not demonstrate bioequivalence to the capsule formulation in either pharmacodynamic or PK key parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study 302: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03097861; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03097861; Study 304: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03010631; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03010631. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01707-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8190023 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Healthcare |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81900232021-06-28 Capsule and Sprinkle Formulations of Lubiprostone Are Not Biologically Similar in Patients with Functional Constipation Adams, Atoya Barish, Charles Chen, Angel Dennis, Patrick Krause, Richard Lichtlen, Peter Losch-Beridon, Taryn Mareya, Shadreck Schneider, Jeffrey Adv Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: Lubiprostone capsules are approved for managing three different chronic constipation conditions. A “sprinkle” formulation may facilitate use in individuals with difficulty swallowing capsules. Our objective was to evaluate the bioequivalence, pharmacokinetics (PK), and bioavailability of lubiprostone sprinkles vs lubiprostone capsules, compared with placebo. METHODS: A 1-week randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, bioequivalence study (study 302) and a single-dose PK and bioavailability crossover study (study 304) were conducted. In study 302, 522 subjects with chronic constipation were randomized to lubiprostone sprinkle 24 μg twice daily (BID), lubiprostone capsule 24 μg BID, or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was observed spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) counts (equivalence defined as showing the 90% confidence interval [CI] of the “between-group SBM ratio” to be contained within 0.8–1.25). Study 304 included two cohorts of healthy volunteers randomized to a single 48-μg lubiprostone dose, sprinkle, or capsule (n = 35) or to a single 48-μg sprinkle dose, in fed or fasted state (n = 14). RESULTS: Both lubiprostone formulations significantly improved SBM count (sprinkle, 4.82 ± 3.66, P = 0.002; capsule, 5.74 ± 3.79, P < 0.0001) vs placebo (3.68 ± 2.16), but equivalent efficacy was not demonstrated, with a 90% CI for the SBM count ratio of 0.69–0.95. Quantifiable PK data on lubiprostone were limited; however, overall exposure to the M3 metabolite was approximately 44% higher with sprinkles vs capsules under fasted conditions (geometric mean ratio 1.441 [90% CI, 1.166, 1.782]), and exposure with the sprinkle formulation was 11% lower in the fed state vs the fasted state (geometric mean ratio 0.888 [90% CI, 0.675, 1.168]). Both formulations were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Despite the significant improvement in SBM counts vs placebo, the sprinkle formulation did not demonstrate bioequivalence to the capsule formulation in either pharmacodynamic or PK key parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study 302: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03097861; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03097861; Study 304: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03010631; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03010631. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01707-9. Springer Healthcare 2021-04-08 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8190023/ /pubmed/33834354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01707-9 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2021, corrected publication 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Adams, Atoya Barish, Charles Chen, Angel Dennis, Patrick Krause, Richard Lichtlen, Peter Losch-Beridon, Taryn Mareya, Shadreck Schneider, Jeffrey Capsule and Sprinkle Formulations of Lubiprostone Are Not Biologically Similar in Patients with Functional Constipation |
title | Capsule and Sprinkle Formulations of Lubiprostone Are Not Biologically Similar in Patients with Functional Constipation |
title_full | Capsule and Sprinkle Formulations of Lubiprostone Are Not Biologically Similar in Patients with Functional Constipation |
title_fullStr | Capsule and Sprinkle Formulations of Lubiprostone Are Not Biologically Similar in Patients with Functional Constipation |
title_full_unstemmed | Capsule and Sprinkle Formulations of Lubiprostone Are Not Biologically Similar in Patients with Functional Constipation |
title_short | Capsule and Sprinkle Formulations of Lubiprostone Are Not Biologically Similar in Patients with Functional Constipation |
title_sort | capsule and sprinkle formulations of lubiprostone are not biologically similar in patients with functional constipation |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8190023/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33834354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01707-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT adamsatoya capsuleandsprinkleformulationsoflubiprostonearenotbiologicallysimilarinpatientswithfunctionalconstipation AT barishcharles capsuleandsprinkleformulationsoflubiprostonearenotbiologicallysimilarinpatientswithfunctionalconstipation AT chenangel capsuleandsprinkleformulationsoflubiprostonearenotbiologicallysimilarinpatientswithfunctionalconstipation AT dennispatrick capsuleandsprinkleformulationsoflubiprostonearenotbiologicallysimilarinpatientswithfunctionalconstipation AT krauserichard capsuleandsprinkleformulationsoflubiprostonearenotbiologicallysimilarinpatientswithfunctionalconstipation AT lichtlenpeter capsuleandsprinkleformulationsoflubiprostonearenotbiologicallysimilarinpatientswithfunctionalconstipation AT loschberidontaryn capsuleandsprinkleformulationsoflubiprostonearenotbiologicallysimilarinpatientswithfunctionalconstipation AT mareyashadreck capsuleandsprinkleformulationsoflubiprostonearenotbiologicallysimilarinpatientswithfunctionalconstipation AT schneiderjeffrey capsuleandsprinkleformulationsoflubiprostonearenotbiologicallysimilarinpatientswithfunctionalconstipation |