Pharmacokinetic properties and bioequivalence of gefitinib 250 mg in healthy Korean male subjects

• Published in: Translational and clinical pharmacology 2021-09, Vol.29 (3), p.171-179
• Main Authors: Moon, Seol Ju, Kim, Yunjeong, Jeon, Ji-Young, Park, Shin-Jung, Kwak, Yong-Geun, Kim, Min-Gul
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bioequivalence Report
• ISSN: 2289-0882; 2383-5427
• DOI: 10.12793/tcp.2021.29.e17

Gefitinib is an anti-cancer drug used to treat non-small cell lung cancer. The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics and evaluate the bioequivalence of 2 orally administered gefitinib 250 mg tablets in healthy Korean subjects. A randomized, open-label, single-dose, crossover bioequivalence study was conducted. A total of 50 healthy male volunteers were randomized into 2 sequence groups. During each treatment, the subjects received the test or reference formulation of 250 mg gefitinib with a washout period of 21 days. The plasma samples were collected at pre-dose and up to 144 hours post-dose, and plasma drug concentrations were measured using validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated, and the formulations were considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios were within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25. Forty-one subjects completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. The 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios of the test formulation to the reference formulation were 0.8115 to 0.9993 for maximum plasma concentration and 0.9119 to 1.0411 for area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from dosing to the last measurable concentration. There were no serious or unexpected adverse events during the study. In healthy Korean adult subjects, the test and reference formulations of gefitinib 250 mg had similar pharmacokinetic parameters and similar plasma concentration-time profiles. The test formulation of gefitinib met the regulatory criteria for assuming bioequivalence. Both formulations were safe and well-tolerated.