Relative bioavailability of rifampicin in four Chinese fixed-dose combinations compared with rifampicin in free combinations.
- Author:
Hui ZHU
;
Shao-Chen GUO
;
Lan-Hu HAO
;
Cheng-Cheng LIU
;
Bin WANG
;
Lei FU
;
Ming-Ting CHEN
;
Lin ZHOU
;
Jun-Ying CHI
;
Wen YANG
;
Wen-Juan NIE
;
Yu LU
1
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH: Adult; Asian Continental Ancestry Group; Biological Availability; Drug Combinations; Humans; Male; Rifampin; administration & dosage; pharmacokinetics; therapeutic use; Tuberculosis; drug therapy; Young Adult
- From: Chinese Medical Journal 2015;128(4):433-437
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUNDDecreases in the bioavailability of rifampicin (RFP) can lead to the development of drug resistance and treatment failure. Therefore, we investigated the relative bioavailability of RFP from one four-drug fixed-dose combination (FDC; formulation A) and three two-drug FDCs (formulations B, C, and D) used in China, compared with RFP in free combinations of these drugs (reference), in healthy volunteers.
METHODSEighteen and twenty healthy Chinese male volunteers participated in two open-label, randomized two-period crossover (formulations A and C) or one three-period crossover (formulations B and D) study, respectively. The washout period between treatments was 7 days. Bioequivalence was assessed based on 90% confidence intervals, according to two one-sided t-tests. All analyses were done with DAS 3.1.5 (Mathematical Pharmacology Professional Committee of China, Shanghai, China).
RESULTSMean pharmacokinetic parameter values of RFP obtained for formulations A, B, C, and D products were 11.42 ± 3.41 μg/ml, 7.86 ± 5.78 μg/ml, 13.05 ± 6.80 μg/ml, and 16.18 ± 3.87 μg/ml, respectively, for peak plasma concentration (C max ), 91.43 ± 30.82 μg·h-1·ml-1 , 55.49 ± 37.58 μg·h-1·ml-1 , 96.50 ± 47.24 μg·h-1·ml-1 , 101.47 ± 33.07 μg·h-1·ml-1 , respectively, for area under the concentration-time curve (AUC 0-24 h ).
CONCLUSIONSAlthough the concentrations of RFP for formulations A, C, and D were within the reported acceptable therapeutic range, only formulation A was bioequivalent to the reference product. The three two-drug FDCs (formulations B, C and D) displayed inferior RFP bioavailability compared with the reference (Chinese Clinical Trials registration number: ChiCTR-TTRCC-12002451).