Objective: Two studies (Study I and Study II) were conducted in healthy Chinese volunteers to confirm that there was no pharmacokinetic drug interaction between AZE and FLU in MP-AzeFlu. The secondary objective was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic parameters of MP-AzeFlu compared with the commercially available mono-components. Methods: Both studies were a randomized, open-label, three-period, six-sequence, single-dose cross-over trial (William’s design) conducted at Beijing Hospital (Beijing, China) in September and October of 2019 in 30 healthy adult male and female volunteers. The natural log transformed parameters: AUC 0-tlast , AUC 0-∞ and C max were analyzed. Results: The comparison of PK parameters between MP-AzeFlu and Aze (commercially available) showed that the LS mean ratios (90% CI) values for, AUC 0–tlast , AUC 0–∞ and C max were 100.29% (94.31– 106.66%), 100.76% (94.60– 107.32%) and 93.14% (81.47– 106.48%). The comparison of PK parameters between MP-AzeFlu and Flu (commercially available) for the bioavailability evaluation showed that the LS mean ratios (90% CI) values for, AUC 0–tlast , AUC 0–∞ and C max were 83.48% (69.81– 99.82%), 100.19% (87.34– 114.94%) and 81.91% (68.50– 97.95%). Conclusion: The study results confirm that neither the FLU or the AZE component in the combination product (MP-AzeFlu), nor the existing qualitative and quantitative differences in the formulation between the currently marketed AZE and FLU mono-product, display significant potential to impact the systemic exposure of AZE or FLU in Chinese subjects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qi et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from Journal of Asthma and Allergy