Advertisement

Advances in Therapy

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 407–415 | Cite as

Comparative Bioavailability of Metformin Hydrochloride Oral Solution Versus Metformin Hydrochloride Tablets in Fasting Mexican Healthy Volunteers

  • Lourdes Garza-Ocañas
  • Jorge González-CanudasEmail author
  • Eduardo Tamez-de la O
  • Christian Badillo-Castañeda
  • Marco Vinicio Gómez-Meza
  • Yulia Romero-Antonio
  • Aarón Molina-Pérez
  • Ana Gabriela Amador-Hernández
Original Research

Abstract

Introduction

Metformin tablets may be challenging to swallow not only for those patients with dysphagia but also for children and the elderly. A metformin solution was developed for easier administration and flexible dose adjustment mantained with the same bioavailability of tablets. The objective of this study was to assess the single-dose oral bioavailability of metformin hydrochloride administered as an oral solution (500 mg/5 mL) compared with metformin hydrochloride 500 mg tablets in fasting Mexican healthy volunteers.

Methods

A randomized, single dose, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study design with a 7-day washout interval was conducted. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride, either as an oral solution (test drug) or as a tablet (reference drug), after 10 h of fasting. Plasma samples (16) were collected over a 16-h period after drug administration. Bioequivalence was declared when the ratio for the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the difference in the means of the log-transformed area under the concentration–time curve from time 0 to the last observed concentration time (AUC0–t), the area under the concentration–time curve extrapolated to infinite time (AUC0–∞), and the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of the two products were within 0.80 and 1.25 interval. Plasma concentrations were analyzed using reverse phase chromatography by tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Safety and tolerability of metformin were also assessed in all subjects.

Results

24 subjects were enrolled and completed the study (15 female and 9 male). Test and reference metformin hydrochloride were bioequivalent during the extent of exposure since AUC0–t and Cmax 90% CIs corresponded to 89.77–101.08% and 89.63–102.48%, respectively, both being within the pre-specified acceptance range criteria (80–125%). There were two adverse events (AE) with the reference formulation that were not related to the study drug.

Conclusions

Bioequivalence in healthy volunteers in fasting conditions of the two metformin hydrochloride formulations (oral solution and tablets) was established, being the difference in means of AUC0–t, AUC0–∞ and Cmax within the acceptance range (80–125%). Oral solution formulation could offer the advantages of allowing adjusted doses and easier swallowing for every patient.

Plain Language Summary

Plain language summary is available for this article.

Trial Registration

National Clinical Trials Registry (RNEC by its Spanish acronym), BD METF-Sil No. 86-15. Mexican Medicine Agency (COFEPRIS) Registry: 153300410B0368.

Funding

Laboratorios Silanes, S.A. de C.V.

Keywords

Bioavailability Bioequivalence Metformin Oral solution formulation Pharmacokinetic 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the volunteers and every participant involved in this study for their dedication and effort.

Funding

This study was supported in its entirety by Laboratorios Silanes, S.A. de C.V., including article processing charges and open access fee. All authors had full access to all of the data in this study and take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis.

Editorial Assistance

All authors thank Dr. Walter García Ubbelohde, from the Research and Development Department of Laboratorios Silanes, for his help with English style and grammar of the manuscript.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given final approval of the version to be published.

Disclosures

Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León was contracted by Laboratorios Silanes for the development of this study.

Lourdes Garza-Ocañas is an employee of Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.

Eduardo Tamez is an employee of Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.

Christian Badillo-Castañeda is an employee of Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.

Marco Vinicio Gómez-Meza is an employee of Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.

Jorge González-Canudas works part time in a Mexican public health institution and is R&D Director of Laboratorios Silanes, S.A. de C.V.

Yulia Romero-Antonio is an employee of Laboratorios Silanes, S.A. de C.V.

Aarón Molina-Pérez is an employee of Laboratorios Silanes, S.A. de C.V.

Ana Gabriela Amador-Hernández is an employee of Laboratorios Silanes, S.A. de C.V.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

The protocol and informed consent were approved by the institutional review board of the University Hospital “Dr. Jose E. Gonzalez” Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon (U.A.N.L.) and by the Mexican Health Authorities (COFEPRIS, Ministry of Health, Mexico City). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, the 1964 Helsinki declaration [11] and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards, Good Clinical Practice [12], Guidance for Industry, Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies submitted in NDAs or INDs (FDA) [13], Administration’s in vivo bioequivalence guidances [14], Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence (EMA) [15] and Mexican bioequivalence guideline [16]. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References

  1. 1.
    Brunton L, Chabner B, Knollmann B. Gilman and Goodman: the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. 12a. Ed. Chapter 43: endocrine pancreas and pharmacotherapy of diabetes mellitus and hypoglycemia. New York: McGrawHill; 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    General Health Council. Federal Government. General Practice Guide. Diagnosis, ambulatory control goals, oportune reference of diabetes mellitus type 2 in adults in first level of attention. SS-093-0.CENETEC, 2013.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    US Food and Drug Administration. RIOMET® monograph. 2016. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/021591s004lbl.pdf. Accessed Apr 2016.
  4. 4.
    Scheen A. Clinical Pharmacokinetic of metformin. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1996;30:359–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alemón R, Chávez J, Ramírez B, Rivera L, García R. Estabilidad fisicoquímica de tres marcas genéricas de metformina en solución. Acta Pediátr México. 2014;35:104–10.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rivera L, Pérez G, Chávez J, Torres L, Juárez H, Alemón R. Farmacocinética comparada de metformina, en forma sólida y en formulación extemporánea líquida para pediatría, en voluntarios adultos sanos. Acta Pediátr México 2016;37(4):191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuesta G, Holguín M, Archbold J, Ruiz Restrepo, Peña A, Montoya B, Ríos T, Correa C. Bioequivalencia de dos formulaciones de metformina, tabletas de 850 mg, en voluntarios sanos colombianos. Iatreia. 2005;18:289–301.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merck. Rubros de la IPPA: DABEX. Medicamentos PLM... 2016.https://www.medicamentosplm.com/home/productos/dabex_tabletas/115/101/7102/210. Accessed Apr 2016.
  9. 9.
    Lacy C, et al. Drug information handbook, a comprehensive resource for all clinicians and health care professionals. Lexi-Comp, APha, 17th Ed, 2008–2009.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright D, Chapman N, Foundling M, Greenwall R, Griffith R, Guyon A, Merriman H. Guideline of medication management of adults with swallowing difficulties. Rosemont Pharm Ltd. 2013;1:3–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principle for medical research involving human subjects [WMA Web site]. Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964, and amended by the 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, October 7, 2000. https://www.wmanet/e/policy/b3.htm. Accessed Apr 2016.
  12. 12.
    European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. International Conference on Harmonisation- World Health Organization. Guideline for Good Clinical Practice [EMEA Web site]. ICH topic E6. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. 2002. http://www.emea.europa.eu. Accessed Apr 2016.
  13. 13.
    Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies submitted in NDAs or INDs- General Considerations. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). 2014. p. 1–26.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    US Food and Drug Administration’s in vivo bioequivalence guidances. Pharmacopeial Forum. 1993;19:6501–08.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. 2010. p. 2–27.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Health Secretary. Official Mexican Norm NOM-177-SSA1-2013. DOF: 20.09.2013. México. http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5314833&fecha=20/09/2013. Accessed Apr 2016.
  17. 17.
    Montoya-Eguía S, Garza-Ocañas L, Badillo-Castañeda C, de la Tamez OT, Zanatta-Calderón T, Gómez-Meza M, Garza-Uloa H. Comparative pharmacokinetic study among 3 metformin formulations in healthy Mexican volunteers: a single-dose, randomized, open label, 3 period crossover study. Curr Ther Res. 2015;77:18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schuirmann D. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1987;715:657–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pro WinNonlin, Ver.6.03, Pharsight Corporation, Mountain View, California 94040. 2015.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lourdes Garza-Ocañas
    • 1
  • Jorge González-Canudas
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Eduardo Tamez-de la O
    • 1
  • Christian Badillo-Castañeda
    • 1
  • Marco Vinicio Gómez-Meza
    • 2
  • Yulia Romero-Antonio
    • 3
  • Aarón Molina-Pérez
    • 3
  • Ana Gabriela Amador-Hernández
    • 3
  1. 1.Pharmacology and Toxicology Department From Meidicine FacultyUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo LeónMonterreyMexico
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo LeónMonterreyMexico
  3. 3.Research and Development DepartmentLaboratorios Silanes, S.A. de C.V.Mexico CityMexico
  4. 4.Internal Medicine DepartmentIMSS-Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXIMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations