Pharmacokinetics and gamma scintigraphy evaluation of two enteric coated formulations of didanosine in healthy volunteers.
B. Damle,Ismat Ullah,W. Doll,G. Wiley,C. Knupp
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/J.0306-5251.2002.01648.X
2002-09-01
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Abstract:AIMS
The aims of the study were to evaluate the bioavailability of didanosine from the encapsulated enteric coated beads (1 x 200 mg; enteric beads) and enteric coated mini-tablets (4 x 50 mg; enteric tablet) formulations relative to the chewable/dispersible buffered tablets (2 x 100 mg; buffered tablet), and to study their rate of gastrointestinal transit.
METHODS
This was a single-dose, randomized, three-way crossover study in 18 healthy male volunteers. A 200 mg dose of didanosine was given in each period and each formulation contained a gamma radiation-emitting isotope. Pharmacokinetic parameters determined were Cmax, tmax, AUC(0, infinity ) and t1/2. Bioequivalence was assessed using the confidence interval (CI) of 0.80, 1.25 for Cmax and AUC(0, infinity ). Scintigraphic images were recorded and gastrointestinal transit profiles were generated.
RESULTS
The point estimate and 90% CI of the ratio of Cmax for the enteric beads and enteric tablet relative to the buffered tablet was 0.71 (0.59, 0.85) and 0.55 (0.46, 0.66), respectively. The tmax was significantly different for the enteric beads (median, 1.33 h) and the enteric tablet (median, 2.83 h) than for the buffered tablet (median, 0.67 h). The AUC(0, infinity ) satisfied the bioequivalence criteria, and the point estimate and 90% CI of the ratio were 1.02 (0.91, 1.15) and 0.92 (0.82, 1.04) for the enteric beads and enteric tablet, respectively. The AUC(0, infinity ) values appeared to be less variable with the enteric beads (% CV = 19%) than with the enteric tablet (% CV = 33%). The t1/2 values were not significantly different between formulations, and the mean values ranged from 1.82 to 1.92 h. Inspection of the individual scintigraphy profiles and concentration-time curves suggested that didanosine was absorbed throughout the small intestine. Gastrointestinal transit parameters were higher for both enteric formulations than for the buffered tablet, indicating slower transit of the enteric formulations. Between the enteric formulations, gastric emptying was slower for the enteric beads than for the enteric tablet; however, plasma didanosine concentrations were observed sooner for the enteric beads, suggesting that the enteric coat for the beads dissolved more rapidly.
CONCLUSIONS
The enteric beads and enteric tablet formulations of didanosine were equivalent to the buffered tablet in their extent of absorption. Although the gastric emptying of the enteric tablet was faster, based on the rapid uncoating and the lower variability in AUC, the enteric beads were chosen for further clinical development.