Manufactured in Germany, extended-release reduced-mass metformin (Glucophage ® XR RM; GXR-RM) tablets are a new formulation of metformin hydrochloride. A new manufacturing location has been established in China; however, the bioequivalence of GXR-RM from these two locations has not been previously reported. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of GXR-RM 500-mg tablets manufactured in China (test product) versus Germany (reference product) in healthy Chinese adults. This open-label, randomized, two-period, two-sequence, single-center crossover trial was conducted in Beijing, China (NCT05463094; CTR20221631). Healthy Chinese adults were enrolled under fasting ( n = 58) or fed ( n = 26) conditions and randomly assigned to receive a single dose of the test or reference product. The primary endpoints were maximum observed concentration ( C max ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last quantifiable sampling time (AUC 0– t ); bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric least-squares mean test: reference ratios fell within 0.80–1.25. Under fasting conditions, the C max geometric mean [coefficient of variation (CV)] was 854 ng/mL (25.9%; test product) and 821 ng/mL (30.1%; reference product); the AUC 0– t was 5140 h·ng/mL (26.3%; test product) and 5020 h·ng/mL (29.6%; reference product); and the geometric least-squares mean ratio (90% confidence interval) of C max and AUC 0– t for the test: reference product was 1.0362 (0.9750–1.1012) and 1.0191 (0.9684–1.0725), respectively, meeting the pre-defined bioequivalence criteria. Similar results were observed under fed conditions. Both products had similar safety profiles. Our results demonstrate the bioequivalence of GXR-RM tablets manufactured in these two locations, which is important for patient adherence and regulatory approval. This trial was registered under the identifiers NCT05463094 (ClinicalTrials.gov) and CTR20221631 (Chinese Clinical Trial Register).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Du et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: