Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessment of bioavailability for two prodrugs of methylprednisolone

• Published in: British journal of clinical pharmacology 1997-06, Vol.43 (6), p.593-601
• Main Authors: Daley‐Yates, P. T., Gregory, A. J., Brooks, C. D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Analysis of Variance; Area Under Curve; Basophils - cytology; Basophils - drug effects; bioavailability; bioequivalence; Biological and medical sciences; Biological Availability; Blood Glucose - metabolism; Bones, joints and connective tissue. Antiinflammatory agents; Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid; Cross-Over Studies; Glucocorticoids - blood; Glucocorticoids - pharmacokinetics; Glucocorticoids - pharmacology; Glucocorticoids - urine; histamine; Histamine - blood; Humans; intramuscular; Leukocyte Count - drug effects; Male; Medical sciences; methylprednisolone; Methylprednisolone - analogs & derivatives; Methylprednisolone - blood; Methylprednisolone - pharmacokinetics; Methylprednisolone - pharmacology; Methylprednisolone - urine; Methylprednisolone Hemisuccinate - analysis; Methylprednisolone Hemisuccinate - pharmacokinetics; Methylprednisolone Hemisuccinate - pharmacology; Middle Aged; modeling; Original; pharmacodynamics; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Prodrugs - analysis; Prodrugs - pharmacokinetics; Prodrugs - pharmacology; Promedrol; Radioimmunoassay; Single-Blind Method; Solu‐medrol; succinate; suleptanate; Therapeutic Equivalency
• ISSN: 0306-5251; 1365-2125
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.1997.00598.x

Aims The aim of this study was to establish whether pharmacokinetic differences between two pro‐drugs of methylprednisolone (MP) are likely to be of clinical significance. Methods This study was a single‐blind, randomized, crossover design comparing the bioequivalence of MP released from the pro‐drugs Promedrol (MP suleptanate) and Solu‐Medrol (MP succinate) after a single 250 mg (MP equivalent) intramuscular injection to 20 healthy male volunteers. Bioequivalence was assessed by conventional pharmacokinetic analysis, by measuring pharmacodynamic responses plus a novel approach using pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling. The main measure of pharmacodynamic response was whole blood histamine (WBH), a measure of basophil numbers. Results The MP Cmax was less for MP suleptanate due to a longer absorption half‐life of the prodrug from the intramuscular injection site. The bioavailability of MP was equivalent when based on AUC with a MP suleptanate median 108% of the MP succinate value (90% CI: 102–114%). For Cmax the MP suleptanate median was 81% of the MP succinate value (90% CI: 75–88%). The tmax for MP from MP suleptanate was delayed relative to MP succinate. The median difference was 200% (90% non‐parametric CI: 141–283%). The area under the WBH effect‐time curve (AUEC) and the maximum response (Emax ) were found to be equivalent (90% CI: 98–113% and 93–109% respectively). The maximum changes in other white blood cell counts, blood glucose concentration and the parameters of the pharmacodynamic sigmoid Emax model (EC50, Emax and γ) were also not significantly different between prodrugs. Conclusions MP suleptanate is an acceptable pharmaceutical alternative to MP succinate. The use of both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic response data together gives greater confidence in the conclusions compared with those based only on conventional pharmacokinetic bioequivalence analysis.