Loading…

Exploration of suitable pharmacodynamic parameters for acarbose bioequivalence evaluation: A series of clinical trials with branded acarbose

Aims To determine deficiencies in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s guidance for assessing acarbose bioequivalence (BE) and to explore optimal pharmacodynamic (PD) metrics for better evaluation of acarbose BE. Methods Three clinical trials with branded acarbose were conducted in healthy...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of clinical pharmacology 2020-11, Vol.86 (11), p.2225-2233
Main Authors: Huang, Jie, Liu, Wen‐yu, Yu, Jing‐jing, Yang, Jin‐bo, Li, Min, Zou, Chan, Guo, Cheng‐xian, Yang, Xiao‐yan, Yang, Shuang, Xie, Jin‐lian, Huang, Zhi‐jun, Chen, Hui, Pei, Qi, Yang, Guo‐ping
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4154-af2668c3188e31c317acad66606e45af0ea9e2fbf61ebda20f94a468d4eecb083
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4154-af2668c3188e31c317acad66606e45af0ea9e2fbf61ebda20f94a468d4eecb083
container_end_page 2233
container_issue 11
container_start_page 2225
container_title British journal of clinical pharmacology
container_volume 86
creator Huang, Jie
Liu, Wen‐yu
Yu, Jing‐jing
Yang, Jin‐bo
Li, Min
Zou, Chan
Guo, Cheng‐xian
Yang, Xiao‐yan
Yang, Shuang
Xie, Jin‐lian
Huang, Zhi‐jun
Chen, Hui
Pei, Qi
Yang, Guo‐ping
description Aims To determine deficiencies in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s guidance for assessing acarbose bioequivalence (BE) and to explore optimal pharmacodynamic (PD) metrics for better evaluation of acarbose BE. Methods Three clinical trials with branded acarbose were conducted in healthy subjects, including a pilot study (Study I, n = 11, 50 and 100 mg), a 2×2 crossover BE study (Study II, n = 36, 100 mg) and a 4×4 Williams study (Study III, n = 16, 50/100/150 mg). Serum glucose concentrations were measured by the glucose oxidase method. Results In Study I, compared with 50 mg acarbose, only 100 mg acarbose had a significantly lower Cmax0–4h than that of sucrose administration alone (7.96 ± 0.83 mmol/L vs 6.78 ± 1.02 mmol/L, P < .05). In Study II, the geometric mean ratios of the test formulation to the reference formulation (both formulations were the branded drug) for FDA PD metrics, ΔCmax0–4h and ΔAUC0–4h, were 0.903 and 0.776, respectively, and the 90% confidence intervals were 67.44–120.90 and 53.65–112.13, respectively. The geometric mean ratios (confidence interval) for possible optimal evaluation PD metrics (Cmax0–2h and AUC0–2h) were 1.035 (94.23–112.68) and 0.982 (89.28–107.17), respectively. Further, Cmax0–2h and AUC0–2h also met the sensitivity requirements for BE evaluation in Study III. Conclusion Considering the mechanisms of action of acarbose, the PD effect was shown to be dose independent during the 2–4 hours postadministration of acarbose. Hence PD metrics based on the serum glucose concentration from 0 to 2 hours (Cmax0–2h and AUC0–2h) are more sensitive than the FDA‐recommended PD metrics for acarbose BE evaluation from 0–4 hours (ΔCmax0–4h and ΔAUC0–4h). The trial has been registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR1800015795, ChiCTR‐IIR‐17013918, ChiCTR‐IIR‐17011903). All subjects provided written informed consent before screening.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/bcp.14324
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7576622</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2394901386</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4154-af2668c3188e31c317acad66606e45af0ea9e2fbf61ebda20f94a468d4eecb083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1v1DAQhi1URJfCgT-AfCyHtP6KN8sBqV2VD6kSHOBsjZ1J15UTp3bSsv-hP7put6zggC9jaR49M5qXkHecnfDyTq0bT7iSQr0gCy51XQku6gOyYJLpqhY1PySvc75mjEuu61fkUAoppWLLBbm_-D2GmGDycaCxo3n2E9iAdNxA6sHFdjtA7x0dIUGPE6ZMu5goOEg2ZqTWR7yZ_S0EHBxSLJ_5yfaRntGMyWN-9LrgB-8g0Cl5CJne-WlDbYKhxXYve0NedqWJb5_rEfn1-eLn-mt1-f3Lt_XZZeUUr1UFndC6cZI3DUpe6rIIWq0106hq6BjCCkVnO83RtiBYt1KgdNMqRGdZI4_Ip513nG2PrcNhShDMmHwPaWsiePNvZ_AbcxVvzbJeai1EERw_C1K8mTFPpvfZYQgwYJyzEXKlVuXajS7ohx3qUsw5Ybcfw5l5TM-U9MxTeoV9__dee_JPXAU43QF3PuD2_yZzvv6xUz4AQUSpJQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2394901386</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Exploration of suitable pharmacodynamic parameters for acarbose bioequivalence evaluation: A series of clinical trials with branded acarbose</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Huang, Jie ; Liu, Wen‐yu ; Yu, Jing‐jing ; Yang, Jin‐bo ; Li, Min ; Zou, Chan ; Guo, Cheng‐xian ; Yang, Xiao‐yan ; Yang, Shuang ; Xie, Jin‐lian ; Huang, Zhi‐jun ; Chen, Hui ; Pei, Qi ; Yang, Guo‐ping</creator><creatorcontrib>Huang, Jie ; Liu, Wen‐yu ; Yu, Jing‐jing ; Yang, Jin‐bo ; Li, Min ; Zou, Chan ; Guo, Cheng‐xian ; Yang, Xiao‐yan ; Yang, Shuang ; Xie, Jin‐lian ; Huang, Zhi‐jun ; Chen, Hui ; Pei, Qi ; Yang, Guo‐ping</creatorcontrib><description>Aims To determine deficiencies in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s guidance for assessing acarbose bioequivalence (BE) and to explore optimal pharmacodynamic (PD) metrics for better evaluation of acarbose BE. Methods Three clinical trials with branded acarbose were conducted in healthy subjects, including a pilot study (Study I, n = 11, 50 and 100 mg), a 2×2 crossover BE study (Study II, n = 36, 100 mg) and a 4×4 Williams study (Study III, n = 16, 50/100/150 mg). Serum glucose concentrations were measured by the glucose oxidase method. Results In Study I, compared with 50 mg acarbose, only 100 mg acarbose had a significantly lower Cmax0–4h than that of sucrose administration alone (7.96 ± 0.83 mmol/L vs 6.78 ± 1.02 mmol/L, P &lt; .05). In Study II, the geometric mean ratios of the test formulation to the reference formulation (both formulations were the branded drug) for FDA PD metrics, ΔCmax0–4h and ΔAUC0–4h, were 0.903 and 0.776, respectively, and the 90% confidence intervals were 67.44–120.90 and 53.65–112.13, respectively. The geometric mean ratios (confidence interval) for possible optimal evaluation PD metrics (Cmax0–2h and AUC0–2h) were 1.035 (94.23–112.68) and 0.982 (89.28–107.17), respectively. Further, Cmax0–2h and AUC0–2h also met the sensitivity requirements for BE evaluation in Study III. Conclusion Considering the mechanisms of action of acarbose, the PD effect was shown to be dose independent during the 2–4 hours postadministration of acarbose. Hence PD metrics based on the serum glucose concentration from 0 to 2 hours (Cmax0–2h and AUC0–2h) are more sensitive than the FDA‐recommended PD metrics for acarbose BE evaluation from 0–4 hours (ΔCmax0–4h and ΔAUC0–4h). The trial has been registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR1800015795, ChiCTR‐IIR‐17013918, ChiCTR‐IIR‐17011903). All subjects provided written informed consent before screening.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0306-5251</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2125</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14324</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32333407</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley and Sons Inc</publisher><subject>acarbose ; bioequivalence ; Food and Drug Administration guidance ; individual variation ; Original ; pharmacodynamic parameters</subject><ispartof>British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020-11, Vol.86 (11), p.2225-2233</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society</rights><rights>2020 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4154-af2668c3188e31c317acad66606e45af0ea9e2fbf61ebda20f94a468d4eecb083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4154-af2668c3188e31c317acad66606e45af0ea9e2fbf61ebda20f94a468d4eecb083</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5930-586X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32333407$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huang, Jie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Wen‐yu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Jing‐jing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Jin‐bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Min</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zou, Chan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Cheng‐xian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Xiao‐yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Shuang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Jin‐lian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Zhi‐jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Hui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pei, Qi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Guo‐ping</creatorcontrib><title>Exploration of suitable pharmacodynamic parameters for acarbose bioequivalence evaluation: A series of clinical trials with branded acarbose</title><title>British journal of clinical pharmacology</title><addtitle>Br J Clin Pharmacol</addtitle><description>Aims To determine deficiencies in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s guidance for assessing acarbose bioequivalence (BE) and to explore optimal pharmacodynamic (PD) metrics for better evaluation of acarbose BE. Methods Three clinical trials with branded acarbose were conducted in healthy subjects, including a pilot study (Study I, n = 11, 50 and 100 mg), a 2×2 crossover BE study (Study II, n = 36, 100 mg) and a 4×4 Williams study (Study III, n = 16, 50/100/150 mg). Serum glucose concentrations were measured by the glucose oxidase method. Results In Study I, compared with 50 mg acarbose, only 100 mg acarbose had a significantly lower Cmax0–4h than that of sucrose administration alone (7.96 ± 0.83 mmol/L vs 6.78 ± 1.02 mmol/L, P &lt; .05). In Study II, the geometric mean ratios of the test formulation to the reference formulation (both formulations were the branded drug) for FDA PD metrics, ΔCmax0–4h and ΔAUC0–4h, were 0.903 and 0.776, respectively, and the 90% confidence intervals were 67.44–120.90 and 53.65–112.13, respectively. The geometric mean ratios (confidence interval) for possible optimal evaluation PD metrics (Cmax0–2h and AUC0–2h) were 1.035 (94.23–112.68) and 0.982 (89.28–107.17), respectively. Further, Cmax0–2h and AUC0–2h also met the sensitivity requirements for BE evaluation in Study III. Conclusion Considering the mechanisms of action of acarbose, the PD effect was shown to be dose independent during the 2–4 hours postadministration of acarbose. Hence PD metrics based on the serum glucose concentration from 0 to 2 hours (Cmax0–2h and AUC0–2h) are more sensitive than the FDA‐recommended PD metrics for acarbose BE evaluation from 0–4 hours (ΔCmax0–4h and ΔAUC0–4h). The trial has been registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR1800015795, ChiCTR‐IIR‐17013918, ChiCTR‐IIR‐17011903). All subjects provided written informed consent before screening.</description><subject>acarbose</subject><subject>bioequivalence</subject><subject>Food and Drug Administration guidance</subject><subject>individual variation</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>pharmacodynamic parameters</subject><issn>0306-5251</issn><issn>1365-2125</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1v1DAQhi1URJfCgT-AfCyHtP6KN8sBqV2VD6kSHOBsjZ1J15UTp3bSsv-hP7put6zggC9jaR49M5qXkHecnfDyTq0bT7iSQr0gCy51XQku6gOyYJLpqhY1PySvc75mjEuu61fkUAoppWLLBbm_-D2GmGDycaCxo3n2E9iAdNxA6sHFdjtA7x0dIUGPE6ZMu5goOEg2ZqTWR7yZ_S0EHBxSLJ_5yfaRntGMyWN-9LrgB-8g0Cl5CJne-WlDbYKhxXYve0NedqWJb5_rEfn1-eLn-mt1-f3Lt_XZZeUUr1UFndC6cZI3DUpe6rIIWq0106hq6BjCCkVnO83RtiBYt1KgdNMqRGdZI4_Ip513nG2PrcNhShDMmHwPaWsiePNvZ_AbcxVvzbJeai1EERw_C1K8mTFPpvfZYQgwYJyzEXKlVuXajS7ohx3qUsw5Ybcfw5l5TM-U9MxTeoV9__dee_JPXAU43QF3PuD2_yZzvv6xUz4AQUSpJQ</recordid><startdate>202011</startdate><enddate>202011</enddate><creator>Huang, Jie</creator><creator>Liu, Wen‐yu</creator><creator>Yu, Jing‐jing</creator><creator>Yang, Jin‐bo</creator><creator>Li, Min</creator><creator>Zou, Chan</creator><creator>Guo, Cheng‐xian</creator><creator>Yang, Xiao‐yan</creator><creator>Yang, Shuang</creator><creator>Xie, Jin‐lian</creator><creator>Huang, Zhi‐jun</creator><creator>Chen, Hui</creator><creator>Pei, Qi</creator><creator>Yang, Guo‐ping</creator><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5930-586X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202011</creationdate><title>Exploration of suitable pharmacodynamic parameters for acarbose bioequivalence evaluation: A series of clinical trials with branded acarbose</title><author>Huang, Jie ; Liu, Wen‐yu ; Yu, Jing‐jing ; Yang, Jin‐bo ; Li, Min ; Zou, Chan ; Guo, Cheng‐xian ; Yang, Xiao‐yan ; Yang, Shuang ; Xie, Jin‐lian ; Huang, Zhi‐jun ; Chen, Hui ; Pei, Qi ; Yang, Guo‐ping</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4154-af2668c3188e31c317acad66606e45af0ea9e2fbf61ebda20f94a468d4eecb083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>acarbose</topic><topic>bioequivalence</topic><topic>Food and Drug Administration guidance</topic><topic>individual variation</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>pharmacodynamic parameters</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huang, Jie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Wen‐yu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Jing‐jing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Jin‐bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Min</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zou, Chan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Cheng‐xian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Xiao‐yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Shuang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Jin‐lian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Zhi‐jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Hui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pei, Qi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Guo‐ping</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>British journal of clinical pharmacology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huang, Jie</au><au>Liu, Wen‐yu</au><au>Yu, Jing‐jing</au><au>Yang, Jin‐bo</au><au>Li, Min</au><au>Zou, Chan</au><au>Guo, Cheng‐xian</au><au>Yang, Xiao‐yan</au><au>Yang, Shuang</au><au>Xie, Jin‐lian</au><au>Huang, Zhi‐jun</au><au>Chen, Hui</au><au>Pei, Qi</au><au>Yang, Guo‐ping</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Exploration of suitable pharmacodynamic parameters for acarbose bioequivalence evaluation: A series of clinical trials with branded acarbose</atitle><jtitle>British journal of clinical pharmacology</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Clin Pharmacol</addtitle><date>2020-11</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>86</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>2225</spage><epage>2233</epage><pages>2225-2233</pages><issn>0306-5251</issn><eissn>1365-2125</eissn><abstract>Aims To determine deficiencies in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s guidance for assessing acarbose bioequivalence (BE) and to explore optimal pharmacodynamic (PD) metrics for better evaluation of acarbose BE. Methods Three clinical trials with branded acarbose were conducted in healthy subjects, including a pilot study (Study I, n = 11, 50 and 100 mg), a 2×2 crossover BE study (Study II, n = 36, 100 mg) and a 4×4 Williams study (Study III, n = 16, 50/100/150 mg). Serum glucose concentrations were measured by the glucose oxidase method. Results In Study I, compared with 50 mg acarbose, only 100 mg acarbose had a significantly lower Cmax0–4h than that of sucrose administration alone (7.96 ± 0.83 mmol/L vs 6.78 ± 1.02 mmol/L, P &lt; .05). In Study II, the geometric mean ratios of the test formulation to the reference formulation (both formulations were the branded drug) for FDA PD metrics, ΔCmax0–4h and ΔAUC0–4h, were 0.903 and 0.776, respectively, and the 90% confidence intervals were 67.44–120.90 and 53.65–112.13, respectively. The geometric mean ratios (confidence interval) for possible optimal evaluation PD metrics (Cmax0–2h and AUC0–2h) were 1.035 (94.23–112.68) and 0.982 (89.28–107.17), respectively. Further, Cmax0–2h and AUC0–2h also met the sensitivity requirements for BE evaluation in Study III. Conclusion Considering the mechanisms of action of acarbose, the PD effect was shown to be dose independent during the 2–4 hours postadministration of acarbose. Hence PD metrics based on the serum glucose concentration from 0 to 2 hours (Cmax0–2h and AUC0–2h) are more sensitive than the FDA‐recommended PD metrics for acarbose BE evaluation from 0–4 hours (ΔCmax0–4h and ΔAUC0–4h). The trial has been registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR1800015795, ChiCTR‐IIR‐17013918, ChiCTR‐IIR‐17011903). All subjects provided written informed consent before screening.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley and Sons Inc</pub><pmid>32333407</pmid><doi>10.1111/bcp.14324</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5930-586X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0306-5251
ispartof British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020-11, Vol.86 (11), p.2225-2233
issn 0306-5251
1365-2125
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7576622
source Wiley
subjects acarbose
bioequivalence
Food and Drug Administration guidance
individual variation
Original
pharmacodynamic parameters
title Exploration of suitable pharmacodynamic parameters for acarbose bioequivalence evaluation: A series of clinical trials with branded acarbose
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T00%3A36%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Exploration%20of%20suitable%20pharmacodynamic%20parameters%20for%20acarbose%20bioequivalence%20evaluation:%20A%20series%20of%20clinical%20trials%20with%20branded%20acarbose&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20clinical%20pharmacology&rft.au=Huang,%20Jie&rft.date=2020-11&rft.volume=86&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=2225&rft.epage=2233&rft.pages=2225-2233&rft.issn=0306-5251&rft.eissn=1365-2125&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/bcp.14324&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2394901386%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4154-af2668c3188e31c317acad66606e45af0ea9e2fbf61ebda20f94a468d4eecb083%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2394901386&rft_id=info:pmid/32333407&rfr_iscdi=true