Comparative pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, safety, and tolerability profiles of 3 different formulations of epoprostenol sodium for injection in healthy men.
Ключови думи
Резюме
BACKGROUND
Epoprostenol sodium for injection is approved for the treatment of severe cases of primary pulmonary arterial hypertension. Currently, there are 3 approved formulations of this drug containing the same active ingredient (epoprostenol sodium) but differing with regard to excipients. When compared with epoprostenol sodium formulated with glycine-mannitol (epoprostenol GM), 2 new formulations of epoprostenol sodium, one formulated with arginine-mannitol (epoprostenol AM) and one formulated with arginine-sucrose (epoprostenol AS), have improved stability after reconstitution and dilution. The biocomparability of epoprostenol AM and epoprostenol GM, with regard to pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), safety, and tolerability profiles, has been shown previously.
OBJECTIVE
This study compared PK, PD, safety, and tolerability profiles of the 3 different formulations of epoprostenol sodium for injection.
METHODS
This was a prospective, single-center, open-label, 2-period, 2-treatment, randomized, crossover, ascending dose study in 2 parts. Twenty healthy men in part 1 and 20 different individuals in part 2 received epoprostenol AM and epoprostenol AS and epoprostenol GM and epoprostenol AS, respectively, in a crossover fashion, as sequential IV infusions of 2, 4, 6, and 8 ng/kg/min for 2 hours each. In each part, the PK profile of epoprostenol was characterized via analysis of the concentration-time profiles of its 2 primary metabolites: 6-keto-prostacyclin F1α and 6,15-diketo-13,14-dihydro-prostacyclin F1α. The effect of the formulations was assessed using the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio calculated for the exposure PK parameters. The PD variables cardiac output, cardiac index, and heart rate were assessed using echocardiography. Adverse events were recorded through the study.
RESULTS
The plasma concentration versus time curves of epoprostenol AM and epoprostenol AS in part 1 and epoprostenol GM and epoprostenol AS in part 2 were similar in shape and almost superimposable. For each study part, the 90% CIs of ratios of geometric means for AUC0-∞ of the assessed epoprostenol formulations were within the range for bioequivalence (0.8-1.25). The increases in cardiac output, cardiac index, and heart rate resulting from infusion with epoprostenol sodium were comparable between all formulations, with maximum values attained after 8 hours. Almost all study participants reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, the most common being headache, which was reported in 80% to 85% of study participants.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the PK, PD, safety, and tolerability profiles of the 3 formulations of epoprostenol sodium for injection are comparable and meet the criteria of bioequivalence. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry identifier: ACTRN12612001086853.
