Pan L, Belloni P, Ding HT, Wang J, Rubino CM, Putnam WS. A Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence Study Comparing Pirfenidone Tablet and Capsule Dosage Forms in Healthy Adult Volunteers.
Adv Ther 2017;
34:2071-2082. [PMID:
28808905 PMCID:
PMC5599448 DOI:
10.1007/s12325-017-0594-8]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2017] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Introduction
Pirfenidone film-coated tablets were developed to offer an alternative to the marketed capsule formulation. This study assessed the bioequivalence of the tablet and capsule formulations under fed and fasted states.
Methods
A Phase I, open-label, randomized, four-treatment-period, four-sequence, crossover pharmacokinetics study (NCT02525484) was conducted. Each subject received an 801-mg single dose of pirfenidone as three 267-mg capsules or one 801-mg tablet under fasted and fed conditions. Pirfenidone plasma Cmax, AUC0–t and AUC0–∞ were used to assess bioequivalence.
Results
Forty-four subjects were randomized to treatment. The 801-mg tablet in the fasted state met bioequivalence criteria [90% confidence intervals (CI) 80.00–125.00%] for the GLSM ratios of natural log-transformed Cmax, AUC0–t and AUC0–∞. Under fed conditions, the 801-mg tablet met the bioequivalence criteria for AUC0–t and AUC0–∞, but slightly exceeded the bioequivalence criteria for the Cmax (90% CI of 108.26–125.60%). The tablet Cmax was approximately 17% higher than that of the capsules. In the fed state, the tablet Cmax, and both AUC0–t and AUC0–∞ were reduced by 39% and 17%, respectively, relative to the fasted state. The tablet and capsules had acceptable tolerability profiles.
Conclusions
The pirfenidone 801-mg tablet met bioequivalence criteria when compared with three 267-mg capsules in the fasted state. The tablet Cmax was slightly higher relative to capsules in the fed state, but this is not expected to have a clinically meaningful impact on the benefit–risk profile of pirfenidone.
Funding
This work was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0594-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse