Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pharmacokinetics and Bioequivalence of Cefprozil for Suspension and Granule Formulation in Healthy Chinese Volunteers: Two Single-Dose Crossover Studies

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Advances in Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Cefprozil, an oral second-generation semi-synthetic cephalosporin, possesses a broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity. A granule formulation has been developed to improve medication adherence of the patients. This study was conducted to assess the bioequivalence of the granule formulation to a dry suspension in healthy Chinese volunteers and estimate the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of cefprozil.

Methods

An open-label, randomized, single-dose, two-period, two-group, crossover study was conducted in 60 healthy Chinese volunteers under fasted or fed conditions (30 volunteers for each condition) to assess the bioequivalence between two formulations of cefprozil. Blood samples were collected at specified time intervals, and the plasma concentrations of cis- and trans-cefprozil were determined by a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) method. PK and bioavailability parameters were estimated via non-compartmental methods. Adverse events (AEs) were also recorded.

Results

Under fasted conditions, the mean Cmax was (3534.70 ± 634.67) ng/ml, Tmax was (0.98 ± 0.25) h, t1/2 was (1.37 ± 0.13) h and AUC0-t was (9302.86 ± 1618.39) ng·h/ml, respectively, after a single dose of 125 mg cefprozil for suspension. Under fed conditions, the mean Cmax was (2438.80 ± 493.78) ng/ml, Tmax was (1.66 ± 0.76) h, t1/2 was (1.36 ± 0.24) h and AUC0-t was (9332.36 ± 1373.61) ng·h/ml, respectively. The PK parameters of the granule formulation of cefprozil were similar to those of the suspension. The 90% CI values of the GMRs of Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ under both fasted and fed conditions were within the prespecified bioequivalence range (80.00–125.00%).

Conclusions

According to the criteria for bioequivalence, the test granule formulations of cefprozil and "Cefprozil for Suspension®" were determined to be bioequivalent whether under fasted or fed conditions by measurement of cis-, trans- and total cefprozil.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04414254.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Perry CM, Scott LJ. Cefdinir: a review of its use in the management of mild-to-moderate bacterial infections. Drugs. 2004;64(13):1433–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pistiki A, Tsaganos T, Galani I, Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ. In vitro activity of oral cephalosporins (Cefprozil and Cefixime) against ciprofloxacin-resistant enterobacteriaceae from community-acquired urinary-tract infections. Infect Dis Ther. 2015;4(4):425–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tewfik TL, Al GM. Tonsillopharyngitis: clinical highlights. J Otolaryngol. 2005;34(Suppl 1):S45–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sader HS, Jacobs MR, Fritsche TR. Review of the spectrum and potency of orally administered cephalosporins and amoxicillin/clavulanate. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007;57(3 Suppl):5S-12S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhargava S, Lodha R, Kabra SK. Cefprozil: a review. Indian J Pediatr. 2003;70(5):395–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schatz BS, Karavokiros KT, Taeubel MA, Itokazu GS. Comparison of cefprozil, cefpodoxime proxetil, loracarbef, cefixime, and ceftibuten. Ann Pharmacother. 1996;30(3):258–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nolen T. Comparative studies of cefprozil in the management of skin and soft-tissue infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1994;13(10):866–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wise R. Comparative microbiological activity and pharmacokinetics of cefprozil. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1994;13(10):839–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Can NO. HPLC determination of cefprozil in tablets using monolithic and C18 silica columns. J Sep Sci. 2011;34(16–17):2223–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. He G, Mai L, Wang X. Development and validation of an HPLC-MS/MS method for rapid simultaneous determination of cefprozil diastereomers in human plasma. Int J Anal Chem. 2018;2018:1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu M, Ma JY, Zhang Y, et al. An LC-MS/MS method for simultaneous determination of cefprozil diastereomers in human plasma and its application for the bioequivalence study of two cefprozil tablets in healthy Chinese volunteers. Biomed Chromatogr. 2016;30(3):288–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. General Assembly of the World Medical, A. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Coll Dent. 2014;81(3):14–8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Switula D. Principles of good clinical practice (GCP) in clinical research. Sci Eng Ethics. 2000;6(1):71–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Shyu WC, Shukla UA, Shah VR, Papp EA, Barbhaiya RH. Simultaneous high-performance liquid chromatographic analysis of cefprozil diastereomers in a pharmacokinetic study. Pharm Res. 1991;8(8):992–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Barriere SL. Pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of cefprozil. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;14(Suppl 2):184–8 (discussion S195-6).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Park TH, Kim JK, Jee JP, Park JS, Kim CK. HPLC method for simultaneous determination of cefprozil diastereomers in human plasma. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2004;36(1):243–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the staff at Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Jinan, China), for the administration of the study protocol and data collection. We thank the staff at Value Pharmaceutical Services Co., Ltd. (Nanjing, China), for the sample assay and PK analysis. We also acknowledge the staff at Guangzhou Jeeyor Medical Research Co., Ltd. (Guangzhou, China), for their support of the statistical analysis. We are grateful to the volunteers who participated in this study.

Funding

This study was funded by Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and by grants from the National Major Scientific and Technological Special Project for “Significant New Drugs Development” (2020ZX09201-018). The Rapid Service Fee was supported by a research grant from the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University. The authors retained full control of the content of the manuscript. 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 data analysis.

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 their approval for this version to be published.

Disclosures

Ping-Ping Lin, Chen-Jing Wang, Yan-Ping Liu, Ting Li, Xiao-Meng Gao, Ya-Ping Ma, Ping Shi, Xin Li, Le-Xin Wang and Yu Cao declare no conflict of interest.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This clinical study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University. All procedures were performed in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki as well as the International Conference on Harmonization Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Informed consent was obtained from all volunteers prior to enrollment in the study.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available in the figshare repository, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13103342.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ping-Ping Lin and Chen-Jing Wang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Trial Center, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China

    Ping-Ping Lin, Chen-Jing Wang, Yan-Ping Liu, Ting Li, Xiao-Meng Gao, Ya-Ping Ma, Ping Shi, Xin Li & Yu Cao

  2. School of Biomedical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia

    Le-Xin Wang

Authors
  1. Ping-Ping Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chen-Jing Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yan-Ping Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ting Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiao-Meng Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ya-Ping Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ping Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Le-Xin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yu Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Le-Xin Wang or Yu Cao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, PP., Wang, CJ., Liu, YP. et al. Pharmacokinetics and Bioequivalence of Cefprozil for Suspension and Granule Formulation in Healthy Chinese Volunteers: Two Single-Dose Crossover Studies. Adv Ther 38, 1130–1142 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01593-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01593-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation