Research Article
Evaluation of the bioequivalence of tablet and capsule formulations of granisetron in patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignant disease
Article first published online: 21 SEP 2006
DOI: 10.1002/jps.2600821221
Copyright © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc., A Wiley Company
Total views since August 2010: 10
Additional Information
How to Cite
Cupissol, D., Bressolle, F., Adenis, L., Carmichael, J., Bessell, E., Allen, A., Wargenau, M. and Romain, D. (1993), Evaluation of the bioequivalence of tablet and capsule formulations of granisetron in patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignant disease. J. Pharm. Sci., 82: 1281–1284. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600821221
Publication History
- Issue published online: 21 SEP 2006
- Article first published online: 21 SEP 2006
- Manuscript Accepted: 1 APR 1993
- Manuscript Received: 5 AUG 1992
Funded by
- SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, The Frythe, Welwyn, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Granisetron is a novel, highly specific 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist given prophylactically to patients undergoing chemotherapy. An open, randomized, crossover trial was performed with 37 patients (24 females and 13 males) undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignant disease to compare an oral tablet (1-mg tablet given twice daily) with a clinical-trial capsule (1-mg capsule given twice daily). Complete pharmacokinetic data were determined for 24 patients (14 females and 10 males). The concentration of granisetron in plasma was measured by HPLC; the limit of quantitation was 0.2 ng/mL. The bioavailability evaluation was based mainly on the area under the curve (AUC) (mean values: 52.1 ng · h/mL for the capsule and 54.2 ng · h/mL for the tablet) and the maximum concentration (Cmax) (mean values: 7.42 ng/mL for the capsule and 8.18 ng/mL for the tablet) measured at the steady state after 7 days of continuous therapy. Wide interpatient variability in plasma granisetron levels after oral administration was observed. The 90% standard confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio overlapped the critical range, 0.8–1.25. Point estimates for AUC and Cmax based on two one-sided t tests and log-transformed data showed that the upper limit of the confidence interval was not within 20% of the mean for the capsule; the corresponding power analysis values for AUC and Cmax were 0.89 and 0.81, respectively. Despite bioequivalence not being proven, any differences that exist between the two formulations are likely to be small. There was no difference in efficacy or safety between the two formulations assessed.

1520-6017/asset/JPS_left.gif?v=1&s=becd26fac43b87042ad04af68bbe20d6a12e64fc)
1520-6017/asset/olbannerright.jpg?v=1&s=254f44b422de0f476861bd1056a1789033e2171c)
1520-6017/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=e589ccf35fd012c675e943835781318cb8666bed)