Bioequivalence study of two formulations of afatinib dimaleate tablets in healthy subjects under fasting conditions: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, crossover trial
Yanping Liu,Lang Lü,Man Xu,Juanmin Tao,Yuping Ning,Yan Shi,Yanfen Dong,Qingqing Cao,Jun Ma,Yan Qiu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5414/CP204514
2024-08-19
Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the bioequivalence of two different afatinib dimaleate formulations in healthy Chinese subjects under fasting conditions and to assess their pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. Materials and methods: This randomized, open-label, 2-period, crossover, bioequivalence study included 32 healthy Chinese subjects. The subjects were assigned to receive a single 40-mg dose of generic or brand-named afatinib dimaleate tablet. Blood samples were collected pre-dose and up to 120 hours after dosing. Healthy subjects orally took the trial preparation (T) (afatinib maleate tablets developed by Jiangxi Shanxiang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Gan Zhou, China) and the reference preparation (R) (afatinib maleate tablets developed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co., Ingelheim, Germany) under fasting conditions in the appropriate period according to the randomization. We measured the blood concentrations, calculated the pharmacokinetic parameters of the two preparations in the human body, and evaluated whether formulations were bioequivalent. Safety of the preparations in healthy subjects was monitored during the whole trial. Safety assessment was conducted by vital signs, physical examination, laboratory examination, and 12-lead electrocardiogram during the study, i.e., from the time the subject received the test drug to the end of the last visit. Results: Under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios of the test/reference for afatinib dimaleate were 93.34 - 103.92% for AUC0-t, 90.26 - 105.52% for Cmax, and 93.49 - 104.05% for AUC0-∞. Conclusion: The 90% CI for the geometric mean ratios (test/reference) of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were within the range of 80.00 - 125.00%, indicating that the test formulation was equivalent to the reference formulation in healthy Chinese subjects under fasting conditions. Both products were similar in terms of safety.