MIXED SCALING APPROACH TO ESTABLISH BIOEQUIVALENCE OF LANSOPRAZOLE DELAYED RELEASE CAPSULE IN FASTING SPRINKLE WITH APPLE SAUCE STUDY IN HEALTHY SUBJECTS
Objective: The aim of the present study was to establish bioequivalence of highly variable generic lansoprazole (LSP) delayed release (DR) capsule,
exploring minimal number of healthy volunteers by mixed scaling approach as oppose to average bioequivalence approach.
Methods: This was an open-labeled, three-treatment, three-periods, three-sequences, single-dose, partial replicate crossover trial conducted in 36 +
4 (stand by) healthy adult human subject in Indian origin.
Results: Non-parametric Wilcoxon sign rank test at 95% confidence interval failed to conclude significance difference in T
and t1/2 between the
formulations. The intra subject standard deviation of the reference formulation was 0.340 for C
, 0.249 for area under curve up to last measurable
time point (AUCT) and 0.244 for area under curve up to infinity time (AUCI) parameters. The reference scaling as proposed by Haider et al., 2008, was
applied for C
and constant scaling was applied for AUCT and AUCI metrics. No significance difference between two formulations were observed
when data were analyzed by Analysis of Variance (p<0.05). Westlake 90% confidence limit, as well as two one-sided t-test as proposed by Schuriman
and the Anderson-Hauck power analysis all fell under the predefine bioequivalence criteria for mixed scaling.
Conclusion: The generic LSP DR capsules were found to bioequivalent with reference drug under fasting study with apple sauce with respect to rate
and extent of absorption. The mixed scaling statistical analysis approach used to establish bioequivalence with a minimum number of subjects was
found reliable and utilize 40 subjects as opposed to 110 subjects need to establish bioequivalence in traditional average bioequivalence approach.
Keywords: Mixed scaling, Techniques, Non-parametric, Bioequivalence, Delayed release.
inhibition of gastric (H, K)-adenosine triphosphatase by the proton
pump inhibitor AG-1749. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1989;248(2):799-805.
2. Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/
3. Sweetman SC, editor. Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference.
London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2005.
4. Spencer CM, Faulds D. Determination of lansoprazole in
pharmaceutical dosage forms by two different spectroscopic methods.
5. Karol MD, Granneman GR, Alexander KJ. Determination
of lansoprazole in human plasma by rapid resolution liquid
chromatographyâ€“electrospray tandem mass spectrometry: Application
to a bioequivalence study on Chinese volunteers. Chromatogr B
Biomed Appl 1995;668:182-6.
6. Jones DB, Howden CW, Burget DW, Kerr GD, Hunt RH. Acid
suppression in duodenal ulcer: A meta-analysis to define optimal
dosing with antisecretory drugs. Gut 1987;28(9):1120-7.
7. Burget DW, Chiverton SG, Hunt RH. Is there an optimal degree of acid
suppression for healing of duodenal ulcers? A model of the relationship
between ulcer healing and acid suppression. Gastroenterology
8. Howden CW, Meredith PA, Forrest JA, Reid JL. Oral pharmacokinetics
of omeprazole. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1984;26(5):641-3.
9. Kita T, Sakaeda T, Baba T, Aoyama N, Kakumoto M, Kurimoto Y, et al.
Different contribution of CYP2C19 in the in vitro metabolism of three
proton pump inhibitors. Biol Pharm Bull 2003;26(3):386-90.
10. Chong E, Ensom MH. Pharmacogenetics of the proton pump inhibitors:
A systematic review. Pharmacotherapy 2003;23(4):460-71.
11. Kubota T, Chiba K, Ishizaki T. Genotyping of S-mephenytoin
4â€™-hydroxylation in an extended Japanese population. Clin Pharmacol
12. De Morais SM, Wilkinson GR, Blaisdell J, Meyer UA, Nakamura K,
Goldstein JA. Identification of a new genetic defect responsible for
the polymorphism of (S)-mephenytoin metabolism in Japanese. Mol
13. Shu Y, Zhou HH. Individual and ethnic differences in CYP2C19
) for C
activity in Chinese populations. Acta Pharmacol Sin 2000;21(3):193-9.
14. Jacqz E, Dulac H, Mathieu H. Phenotyping polymorphic drug
metabolism in the French Caucasian population. Eur J Clin Pharmacol
15. Adachi K, Katsube T, Kawamura A, Takashima T, Yuki M, Amano K,
et al. CYP2C19 genotype status and intragastric pH during dosing
with lansoprazole or rabeprazole. Aliment Pharmacol Ther
16. Delhotal-Landes B, Miscoria G, Cournot A, Duchier J, Larchevbque J,
Flouvat B. Pharmacokinetic study of lansoprazole in healthy subjects
and in patients with liver diseases. Eur J Clin Pharm 1989;36 Suppl:
17. Landes BD, Petite JP, Flouvat B. Clinical pharmacokinetics of
lansoprazole. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995;28(6):458-70.
18. Walt RP, Gomes MD, Wood EC, Logan EH, Pounder RE. Effect of
daily oral omeprazole on 24 hour intragastric acidity. Br Med J
19. US Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER): Guidance: Bioavailability and Bioequivalence
Studies for Orally Administered Drug Products: General Considerations;
20. Boddy AW, Snikeris FC, Kringle RO, Wei GC, Oppermann JA,
Midha KK. An approach for widening the bioequivalence acceptance
limits in the case of highly variable drugs. Pharm Res
21. Midha KK, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. Bioequivalence: Switchability
and scaling. Eur J Pharm Sci 1998;6(2):87-91.
22. Landes BD, Miscoria G, Flouvat B. Determination of lansoprazole and
its metabolites in plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography
using a loop column. J Chromatogr 1992;577(1):117-22.
23. Wijnand HP. Assessment of average, population and individual
bioequivalence in two- and four-period crossover studies. Comput
Methods Programs Biomed 2003;70(1):21-35.
24. Endrenyi L, Tothfalusi L. Regulatory and study conditions for the
determination of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs. J Pharm
Pharm Sci 2009;12(1):138-49.
25. Haidar SH, Makhlouf F, Schuirmann DJ, Hyslop T, Davit B, Conner D,
et al. Evaluation of a scaling approach for the bioequivalence of highly
variable drugs. AAPS J 2008;10(3):450-4.
26. Steinijans VW, Hauschke D. Update on the statistical analysis
of bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol
27. Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Limits for the scaled average bioequivalence of
highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res 2003;20(3):382-9.
28. Diletti E, Hauschke D, Steinijans VW. Sample size determination for
bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals. Int J Clin
Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1991;29(1):1-8.
29. Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure
and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average
bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1987;15(6):657-80.
30. Haidar SH, Davit B, Chen ML, Conner D, Lee L, Li QH, et al.
Bioequivalence approaches for highly variable drugs and drug products.
Pharm Res 2008;25(1):237-41.
31. Phillips KF. Power of the two one-sided tests procedure in
bioequivalence. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1990;18(2):137-44.
32. Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L, Arieta AG. Evaluation of bioequivalence
for highly variable drugs with scaled average bioequivalence. Clin
33. Guidance for Industry. Statistical Approaches to Establishing
Bioequivalence. U.S: Department of Health and Human Services, Food
and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
34. Chow SC, Liu JP, editors. Design and Analysis of Bioavailability and
Bioequivalence Studies. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc.; 1992.
35. Tothfalusi L, Endrenyi L. Limits for the scaled average bioequivalence
of highly variable drugs and drug products. Pharm Res 2010;20:382-9.
36. Shumaker RC. PKCALC: A Basic interactive computer program for
statistical and pharmacokinetic analysis of data. Drug Metab Rev
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.