Relative bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of a new sibutramine formulation in healthy male subjects: A randomized, open-label, two-period, comparative crossover study

Ji-Young Park, Kyoung Ah Kim, Pil Whan Park, Kwee Hyun Suh, Gwan Sun Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Sibutramine is an orally administered, centrally acting antiobesity drug. Sibutramine hydrochloride monohydrate is the conventional formulation, whereas sibutramine mesylate hemihydrate is a newly developed formulation. Drugs formed from different salts may differ in their solubility profiles and dissolution rates, which may affect their rate of absorption and thus their onset, duration, and intensity of effect. Objective: This study was conducted to compare the relative bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of the new sibutramine formulation (test) with those of the conventional formulation (reference). Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, 2-period, comparative crossover study in healthy male subjects. All subjects received a single 15-mg oral dose of sibutramine hydrochloride monohydrate (reference) and a single 17.3-mg oral dose of sibutramine mesylate hemihydrate (test), both containing 12.55 mg sibutramine base. The 2 doses were separated by a 2-week washout period. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected during a 72-hour period after treatment. Safety parameters were assessed, including adverse events, hematology and biochemistry, urinalysis, and electrocardiography. Plasma concentrations of the active metabolites of sibutramine (desmethylsibutramine [M1] and didesmethylsibutramine [M2]) were determined, and the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the 2 formulations were compared using noncompartmental analysis. Results: Sixteen subjects (mean [SD] age, 24.3 [2.3] years [range, 20-25 years]; mean [SD] body weight, 66.1 [5.1] kg [range, 57-77 kg]) were enrolled in and completed the study. The plasma concentration--time profiles of M1 and M2 were similar after administration of both formulations. The reference and test formulations showed pharmacokinetic equivalence with respect to M1 and M2. The relative bioavailability of the test drug was 117.6% for M1 and 102.4% for M2. The 90% Cls for the ratios of the log-transformed Cmax and AUC values were within the predetermined equivalence range of 80% to 125%. There were no significant changes in physical, biochemical, hematologic, or urinalysis variables during the study. Neither formulation was associated with any serious adverse events. Conclusion: In this study in healthy male subjects, the 2 sibutramine formulations were pharmacokinetically equivalent, and the newly developed formulation had a safety profile comparable to that of the conventional formulation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2092-2101
Number of pages10
JournalClinical Therapeutics
Volume26
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2004 Jan 1
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

sibutramine
Cross-Over Studies
Biological Availability
Healthy Volunteers
Pharmacokinetics
Mesylates
Urinalysis
Anti-Obesity Agents
Safety

Keywords

  • Antiobesity drug
  • Bioavailability
  • Desmethylsibutramine (BTS 54 354)
  • Didesmethylsibutramine (BTS 54 505)
  • Pharmaceutical salts
  • Salt-forming drug
  • Sibutramine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Relative bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of a new sibutramine formulation in healthy male subjects : A randomized, open-label, two-period, comparative crossover study. / Park, Ji-Young; Kim, Kyoung Ah; Park, Pil Whan; Suh, Kwee Hyun; Lee, Gwan Sun.

In: Clinical Therapeutics, Vol. 26, No. 12, 01.01.2004, p. 2092-2101.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d219fae5ecf74273927b2db606ed4a81,
title = "Relative bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of a new sibutramine formulation in healthy male subjects: A randomized, open-label, two-period, comparative crossover study",
abstract = "Background: Sibutramine is an orally administered, centrally acting antiobesity drug. Sibutramine hydrochloride monohydrate is the conventional formulation, whereas sibutramine mesylate hemihydrate is a newly developed formulation. Drugs formed from different salts may differ in their solubility profiles and dissolution rates, which may affect their rate of absorption and thus their onset, duration, and intensity of effect. Objective: This study was conducted to compare the relative bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of the new sibutramine formulation (test) with those of the conventional formulation (reference). Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, 2-period, comparative crossover study in healthy male subjects. All subjects received a single 15-mg oral dose of sibutramine hydrochloride monohydrate (reference) and a single 17.3-mg oral dose of sibutramine mesylate hemihydrate (test), both containing 12.55 mg sibutramine base. The 2 doses were separated by a 2-week washout period. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected during a 72-hour period after treatment. Safety parameters were assessed, including adverse events, hematology and biochemistry, urinalysis, and electrocardiography. Plasma concentrations of the active metabolites of sibutramine (desmethylsibutramine [M1] and didesmethylsibutramine [M2]) were determined, and the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the 2 formulations were compared using noncompartmental analysis. Results: Sixteen subjects (mean [SD] age, 24.3 [2.3] years [range, 20-25 years]; mean [SD] body weight, 66.1 [5.1] kg [range, 57-77 kg]) were enrolled in and completed the study. The plasma concentration--time profiles of M1 and M2 were similar after administration of both formulations. The reference and test formulations showed pharmacokinetic equivalence with respect to M1 and M2. The relative bioavailability of the test drug was 117.6{\%} for M1 and 102.4{\%} for M2. The 90{\%} Cls for the ratios of the log-transformed Cmax and AUC values were within the predetermined equivalence range of 80{\%} to 125{\%}. There were no significant changes in physical, biochemical, hematologic, or urinalysis variables during the study. Neither formulation was associated with any serious adverse events. Conclusion: In this study in healthy male subjects, the 2 sibutramine formulations were pharmacokinetically equivalent, and the newly developed formulation had a safety profile comparable to that of the conventional formulation.",
keywords = "Antiobesity drug, Bioavailability, Desmethylsibutramine (BTS 54 354), Didesmethylsibutramine (BTS 54 505), Pharmaceutical salts, Salt-forming drug, Sibutramine",
author = "Ji-Young Park and Kim, {Kyoung Ah} and Park, {Pil Whan} and Suh, {Kwee Hyun} and Lee, {Gwan Sun}",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.clinthera.2004.12.012",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "2092--2101",
journal = "Clinical Therapeutics",
issn = "0149-2918",
publisher = "Excerpta Medica",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Relative bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of a new sibutramine formulation in healthy male subjects

T2 - A randomized, open-label, two-period, comparative crossover study

AU - Park, Ji-Young

AU - Kim, Kyoung Ah

AU - Park, Pil Whan

AU - Suh, Kwee Hyun

AU - Lee, Gwan Sun

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - Background: Sibutramine is an orally administered, centrally acting antiobesity drug. Sibutramine hydrochloride monohydrate is the conventional formulation, whereas sibutramine mesylate hemihydrate is a newly developed formulation. Drugs formed from different salts may differ in their solubility profiles and dissolution rates, which may affect their rate of absorption and thus their onset, duration, and intensity of effect. Objective: This study was conducted to compare the relative bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of the new sibutramine formulation (test) with those of the conventional formulation (reference). Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, 2-period, comparative crossover study in healthy male subjects. All subjects received a single 15-mg oral dose of sibutramine hydrochloride monohydrate (reference) and a single 17.3-mg oral dose of sibutramine mesylate hemihydrate (test), both containing 12.55 mg sibutramine base. The 2 doses were separated by a 2-week washout period. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected during a 72-hour period after treatment. Safety parameters were assessed, including adverse events, hematology and biochemistry, urinalysis, and electrocardiography. Plasma concentrations of the active metabolites of sibutramine (desmethylsibutramine [M1] and didesmethylsibutramine [M2]) were determined, and the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the 2 formulations were compared using noncompartmental analysis. Results: Sixteen subjects (mean [SD] age, 24.3 [2.3] years [range, 20-25 years]; mean [SD] body weight, 66.1 [5.1] kg [range, 57-77 kg]) were enrolled in and completed the study. The plasma concentration--time profiles of M1 and M2 were similar after administration of both formulations. The reference and test formulations showed pharmacokinetic equivalence with respect to M1 and M2. The relative bioavailability of the test drug was 117.6% for M1 and 102.4% for M2. The 90% Cls for the ratios of the log-transformed Cmax and AUC values were within the predetermined equivalence range of 80% to 125%. There were no significant changes in physical, biochemical, hematologic, or urinalysis variables during the study. Neither formulation was associated with any serious adverse events. Conclusion: In this study in healthy male subjects, the 2 sibutramine formulations were pharmacokinetically equivalent, and the newly developed formulation had a safety profile comparable to that of the conventional formulation.

AB - Background: Sibutramine is an orally administered, centrally acting antiobesity drug. Sibutramine hydrochloride monohydrate is the conventional formulation, whereas sibutramine mesylate hemihydrate is a newly developed formulation. Drugs formed from different salts may differ in their solubility profiles and dissolution rates, which may affect their rate of absorption and thus their onset, duration, and intensity of effect. Objective: This study was conducted to compare the relative bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of the new sibutramine formulation (test) with those of the conventional formulation (reference). Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, 2-period, comparative crossover study in healthy male subjects. All subjects received a single 15-mg oral dose of sibutramine hydrochloride monohydrate (reference) and a single 17.3-mg oral dose of sibutramine mesylate hemihydrate (test), both containing 12.55 mg sibutramine base. The 2 doses were separated by a 2-week washout period. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected during a 72-hour period after treatment. Safety parameters were assessed, including adverse events, hematology and biochemistry, urinalysis, and electrocardiography. Plasma concentrations of the active metabolites of sibutramine (desmethylsibutramine [M1] and didesmethylsibutramine [M2]) were determined, and the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the 2 formulations were compared using noncompartmental analysis. Results: Sixteen subjects (mean [SD] age, 24.3 [2.3] years [range, 20-25 years]; mean [SD] body weight, 66.1 [5.1] kg [range, 57-77 kg]) were enrolled in and completed the study. The plasma concentration--time profiles of M1 and M2 were similar after administration of both formulations. The reference and test formulations showed pharmacokinetic equivalence with respect to M1 and M2. The relative bioavailability of the test drug was 117.6% for M1 and 102.4% for M2. The 90% Cls for the ratios of the log-transformed Cmax and AUC values were within the predetermined equivalence range of 80% to 125%. There were no significant changes in physical, biochemical, hematologic, or urinalysis variables during the study. Neither formulation was associated with any serious adverse events. Conclusion: In this study in healthy male subjects, the 2 sibutramine formulations were pharmacokinetically equivalent, and the newly developed formulation had a safety profile comparable to that of the conventional formulation.

KW - Antiobesity drug

KW - Bioavailability

KW - Desmethylsibutramine (BTS 54 354)

KW - Didesmethylsibutramine (BTS 54 505)

KW - Pharmaceutical salts

KW - Salt-forming drug

KW - Sibutramine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=14844347968&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=14844347968&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.clinthera.2004.12.012

DO - 10.1016/j.clinthera.2004.12.012

M3 - Article

C2 - 15823773

AN - SCOPUS:14844347968

VL - 26

SP - 2092

EP - 2101

JO - Clinical Therapeutics

JF - Clinical Therapeutics

SN - 0149-2918

IS - 12

ER -