Key result
Fixed-dose fimasartan-rosuvastatin demonstrates bioequivalence to separate co-administration.
Why the study?
A fixed-dose combination formulation of fimasartan and rosuvastatin was developed to improve therapeutic convenience and treatment compliance, requiring pharmacokinetic and bioequivalence evaluation.
Does a fixed-dose combination of fimasartan and rosuvastatin provide bioequivalent pharmacokinetic exposure compared to separate co-administration in healthy subjects?
RCT (n=78)
Open-label
two-way crossover
Does a fixed-dose combination of fimasartan and rosuvastatin provide bioequivalent pharmacokinetic exposure compared to separate co-administration in healthy subjects?
Effect estimate: GMR 0.9999 (95% CI 0.9391-1.0646)
A fixed-dose combination of 120 mg fimasartan and 20 mg rosuvastatin is bioequivalent to their separate co-administration, supporting its use to improve treatment compliance.
Supports FDC use to improve adherence in hypertension with dyslipidemia; confirms bioequivalence for regulatory and clinical adoption.
Purpose: A new fixed-dose combination (FDC) formulation of 120 mg fimasartan and 20 mg rosuvastatin was developed to increase therapeutic convenience and improve treatment compliance. Methods: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-treatment, two-way crossover study with a 7-day washout period was conducted to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics and bioequivalence between an FDC of fimasartan/rosuvastatin and the separate co-administration of fimasartan and rosuvastatin in healthy Korean volunteers. The plasma concentrations of fimasartan and rosuvastatin were analyzed by a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method, for which serial blood samples were collected for up to 48 hours post-administration of fimasartan and 72 hours post-administration of rosuvastatin, in each period. The PK parameters were calculated using a non-compartmental method. Results: A total of 78 subjects completed the study. All the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) fell within the predetermined acceptance range. The GMR and 90% CI for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last measurement (AUC 0–t ) and the maximum plasma concentration (C max ) for fimasartan were 0.9999 (0.9391–1.0646) and 1.0399 (0.8665–1.2479), respectively. The GMR and 90% CI for the AUC 0–t and C max for rosuvastatin were 1.0075 (0.9468–1.0722) and 1.0856 (0.9944–1.1852), respectively. Treatment with fimasartan and rosuvastatin was generally well tolerated without serious adverse events. Conclusion: The new FDC formulation of 120 mg fimasartan and 20 mg rosuvastatin can be substituted for the separate co-administration of fimasartan and rosuvastatin, for the advantage of better compliance with convenient therapeutic administration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kang et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Healthy subjects (n=78). fimasartan/rosuvastatin fixed-dose combination vs. separate co-administration of fimasartan and rosuvastatin was evaluated on Area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last measurement (AUC 0-t) for fimasartan (GMR 0.9999, 95% CI 0.9391-1.0646). A fixed-dose combination of fimasartan and rosuvastatin was bioequivalent to separate co-administration, with all 90% CIs for AUC and Cmax geometric mean ratios falling within the acceptance range.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: