Pharmacodynamic Comparison of Two Formulations of Voglibose 0.3-mg Tablet

보글리보스 제제인 보글리정의 베이슨정에 대한 약력학 특성 비교

  • Kim, Mi Jo (Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Lim, Hyeong-Seok (Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Cho, Sang-Heon (Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine) ;
  • Bae, Kyun-Seop (Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Asan Medical Center)
  • 김미조 (서울아산병원 임상약리학과) ;
  • 임형석 (서울아산병원 임상약리학과) ;
  • 조상헌 (인하대학교 의과대학 부속병원 임상약리학과, 인하대학교 의과대학) ;
  • 배균섭 (서울아산병원 임상약리학과)
  • Received : 2013.05.23
  • Accepted : 2013.06.26
  • Published : 2013.06.30

Abstract

Background: Voglibose, an inhibitor of ${\alpha}$-glucosidase of the small intestine brush border, is used to treat type 2 diabetic patients. Bioequivalence test based on pharmacokinetic parameters is difficult because voglibose does not cross the enterocytes after ingestion. This study was conducted to establish bioequivalence of two formulations of 0.3-mg voglibose with pharmacodynamic endpoints. Methods: This study was an open, single-dose, randomized, 6-sequence, 3-period crossover design in healthy volunteers. In each period, subjects received placebo or three tablets of either test formulation or reference formulation with sucrose, with a 7-day washout period each dosing period. Serial blood samples were collected after each administration. The maximum concentrations of serum glucose and serum insulin ($C_{max}$(G) and $C_{max}$(I)) and the area under the serum concentration - time curve from dosing to 2 or 4 hours after dosing for serum glucose and insulin ($AUC_{0-2h}$(G), $AUC_{0-4h}$(G), $AUC_{0-2}$h(I) and $AUC_{0-4h}$(I), respectively) were determined by noncompartmental analysis. Formulation-related differences were tested in accordance with the Korean regulatory bioequivalence criteria. Results: A total of 54 subjects completed study in accordance with protocol. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of the test formulation to the reference formulation for Cmax(G), $AUC_{0-2h}$(G), $AUC_{0-4h}$(G), $C_{max}$(I), $AUC_{0-2h}$(I) and $AUC_{0-4h}$(I) were 0.945, 1.014, 0.995, 0.937, 0.985 and 0.983, respectively and the 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) of corresponding values were 0.985-1.026, 0.991-1.038, 0.977-1.014, 0.830-1.057, 0.901-1.078 and 0.911-1.014, respectively. Conclusion: This single-dose study found that two formulations of 0.3-mg voglibose did not meet the regulatory criteria for bioequivalence in these healthy volunteers.

Keywords

References

  1. Vichayanrat A, Ploybutr S, Tunlakit M, Watanakejorn P. Efficacy and safety of voglibose in comparison with acarbose in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pr, 2002;55(2):99-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8227(01)00286-8
  2. Temelkova-Kurktschiev TS, Koehler C, Henkel E, Leonhardt W, Fuecker K, Hanefeld M. Postchallenge plasma glucose and glycemic spikes are more strongly associated with atherosclerosis than fasting glucose or HbA(1c) level. Diabetes Care, 2000;23(12):1830-1834. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.23.12.1830
  3. Global Guideline for Type 2 Diabetes: International Diabetes Federation; 2012.
  4. Oak W. Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Orally Administered DrugProducts - General Considerations. US Food and Drug Administration; 2003.
  5. Draft Guidance on Acarbose. US Food and Drug Administration; 2009.
  6. Cramp DG. New automated method for measuring glucose by glucose oxidase. J Clin Path, 1967;20:910-912. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.20.6.910
  7. Zhang M, Yang J, Tao L, Li L, Ma P, Fawcett JP. Acarbose bioequivalence: exploration of new pharmacodynamic parameters. AAPS J, 2012; 14(2):345-351. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-012-9341-x
  8. Kageyama S, Nakamichi N, Sekino H, Nakano S. Comparison of the effects of acarbose and voglibose in healthy subjects. Clin Ther, 1997;19(4):720-729. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2918(97)80096-3