Pharmacokinetic comparison of inhaled fixed combination ... - copsac
Pharmacokinetic comparison of inhaled fixed combination ... - copsac
Pharmacokinetic comparison of inhaled fixed combination ... - copsac
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Chawes et al.<br />
Table 2<br />
<strong>Pharmacokinetic</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> formoterol in Foster® 50/6 mg pMDI <strong>fixed</strong> <strong>combination</strong> <strong>of</strong> BDP and formoterol (test treatment) vs.thefree<strong>combination</strong><strong>of</strong>BDP<br />
and formoterol pMDI (reference treatment)<br />
Formoterol<br />
Adjusted geometric mean (95% CI)<br />
Test<br />
Reference<br />
Ratio Test : Reference<br />
90% CI for ratio<br />
AUC(0,t) (pg ml -1 h) 64.5 66.5 0.97 0.85, 1.10<br />
AUC0-• (pg ml -1 h) 85.0 87.5 0.97 0.84, 1.12<br />
AUC0-0.5 h (pg ml -1 h) 4.5 5.0 0.91 0.77, 1.06<br />
C max (pg ml -1 ) 17.6 19.2 0.92 0.78, 1.08<br />
The estimates are the adjusted least squares mean estimates on the natural log scale; the adjusted geometric means are the back-transformed values. AUC = Area under the plasma<br />
drug concentration-time curve; AUC(0,•) is AUC extrapolated to infinity. C max = maximum observed plasma concentration.<br />
Heart rate (beats min –1 )<br />
110<br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8<br />
Time (h)<br />
Figure 3<br />
Mean pr<strong>of</strong>ile diagram <strong>of</strong> heart rate from pre-dose (0 h) till 8 h post-dose<br />
by treatment: Foster® 50/6 mg pMDI<strong>fixed</strong><strong>combination</strong><strong>of</strong>BDPandformoterol<br />
(test, ) vs. the free <strong>combination</strong> <strong>of</strong> BDP and formoterol pMDI<br />
(reference, ). n = 20<br />
PEF (l min –1 )<br />
360<br />
340<br />
320<br />
300<br />
280<br />
260<br />
240<br />
220<br />
200<br />
180<br />
160<br />
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8<br />
Time (h)<br />
Figure 4<br />
Mean pr<strong>of</strong>ile diagram <strong>of</strong> peak expiratory flow (PEF) from pre-dose (0 h) till<br />
8 h post-dose by treatment: Foster® 50/6 mg pMDI<strong>fixed</strong><strong>combination</strong><strong>of</strong><br />
BDP and formoterol (test, ) vs.thefree<strong>combination</strong><strong>of</strong>BDPandformoterol<br />
pMDI (reference, ). n = 20<br />
<strong>comparison</strong> <strong>of</strong> pharmacokinetic parameters <strong>of</strong> two similar<br />
treatments [5]. With the included minimum wash out<br />
period <strong>of</strong> 7 days there was no risk <strong>of</strong> carry over effect,<br />
taking into account five times the terminal half-life [4],<br />
which is the main potential disadvantage <strong>of</strong> the crossover<br />
study design.<br />
The study treatment was given in the morning at<br />
approximately same time (08.00 –10.00 h) for both treatment<br />
periods in order to minimize any circadian variation<br />
in pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic parameters [6].<br />
Furthermore, the participants were carefully trained in the<br />
inhalation technique prior to any study drug administration<br />
to assure fully comparable treatment periods.<br />
In order to prevent any kind <strong>of</strong> contamination, the<br />
administration <strong>of</strong> the study drug was made in a dedicated<br />
room well separated from the blood sampling station and<br />
the on-site laboratory. In addition, subjects and the physician<br />
administering the study drug wore special protective<br />
coats and gloves, which were removed before blood sampling.<br />
Also, the physician administering the inhalations<br />
was not allowed to participate in the blood sampling<br />
procedures.<br />
Consistency in the study related procedures was<br />
assured as a small dedicated and trained team with special<br />
paediatric competences performed all the procedures<br />
according to standard operating procedures.<br />
Limitations <strong>of</strong> the study<br />
Due to the unease <strong>of</strong> withdrawing blood samples from<br />
very young children,we were only able to enrol six patients<br />
aged 5–8 years instead <strong>of</strong> the planned 10 children. The<br />
primary statistical analysis was performed on all the 20<br />
children aged 5–11 years. A subgroup equal to 30% <strong>of</strong> the<br />
total population was considered sufficient to represent the<br />
5–8-year-old subgroup.<br />
Two subjects, who completed the study per protocol,<br />
had no quantifiable study drug concentration detectable<br />
in plasma in one or both treatment phases.This is presum-<br />
1086 / 75:4 / Br J Clin Pharmacol