Bioequivalence evaluation of domestic tablets and imported capsules of rivastigmine tartrate

WANG Xiao-lin,ZHANG Li-na,DU Ai-hua,ZHANG Ya-nan,ZHANG Dan,LIU Man,YANG Man,LIU Hui-chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.16155/j.0254-1793.2013.09.023
2013-01-01
Abstract:Objective: To investigate the pharmacokinetics of rivastigmine tartrate in healthy Chinese volunteers, and evaluate the bioequivalence between its domestic tablet(test formulation) and imported capsule(reference formulation). Methods: The plasma concentrations of rivastigmine were determined using LC-MS/MS method in 20 healthy Chinese volunteers after oral administration of rivastigmine formulation. The main pharmacokinetic parameters of rivastigmine and bioequivalence between the two formulations were calculated by DAS 2. 1. 1. The separation was achieved on an Agilent ZORBAX SB-C18 column(150 mm × 2. 1 mm,5 μm),the mobile phase consisted of methanol-10 mmol·L-1ammonium acetate containing 0. 1% formic acid(50 ∶ 50) at a flow rate of 0. 3 mL· min-1,and the column temperature was 35 ℃. ESI source was applied and operated in positive ion mode and multiple reaction monitoring(MRM). The ion combination of m/z 251. 2→206. 3 and m/z 275. 2→230. 2 was used to qualify rivastigmine and chlorpheniramine respectively. Results: The AUC 0-t was(14. 36 ± 9. 61) and(13. 56 ± 8. 88) ng·h·mL-1,C max was(8. 03 ± 4. 01) and(7. 60 ± 3. 37) ng ·mL-1,T max was(0. 75 ± 0. 31) and(0. 70 ±0. 26) h,and t 1/2 was(1. 12 ± 0. 24) and(1. 13 ± 0. 24) h for the test and reference formulations,respectively. The relative bioavailability of the test formulation was(107. 0 ± 16. 2) %. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that the test and reference formulations are bioequivalent,and there is no significant difference in the rate or extent of absorption after oral administration.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?