Comparative bioavailability study of two oral omeprazole formulations after single and repeated administrations in healthy volunteers

Two oral enteric-coated pellet formulations of omeprazole, Pepticum((R)) (test formulation) and Mopral((R)) (reference), were administered to 24 healthy volunteers for 5 days at a daily dose of 20mg omeprazole in order to investigate the comparative bioavailability of the two formulations. The data...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inClinical drug investigation Vol. 16; no. 2; pp. 141 - 149
Main Authors Duvauchelle, T, Millerioux, L, Gualano, V, Evene, E, Alcaide, A
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New Zealand 1998
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Two oral enteric-coated pellet formulations of omeprazole, Pepticum((R)) (test formulation) and Mopral((R)) (reference), were administered to 24 healthy volunteers for 5 days at a daily dose of 20mg omeprazole in order to investigate the comparative bioavailability of the two formulations. The data obtained in this study demonstrated the bioequivalence of the two formulations. No statistical differences were observed for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC(0-t)), the parameter to which the inhibition of acid secretion induced by omeprazole is directly related. Differences observed in maximum plasma drug concentration (C(max)) at day 1 for both formulations were not statistically significant. At steady-state, the differences found in C(max) were associated with a p-value <0.05 with the 90% confidence interval lying between the acceptance range (70 to 140%). Regarding time to reach C(max) (t(max)), p < 0.01 was found both after single and repeated doses. In both cases, Pepticum((R)) showed a delay in reaching C(max) compared with Mopral((R)): 2.15 +/- 1.11 vs 1.48 +/- 0.52h (day 1) and 1.94 +/- 0.66 vs 1.31 +/- 0.75h (day 5). This study confirmed the reported increases in AUC and C(max) after repeated administrations, the important intersubject variability and the excellent biological and clinical tolerability of both formulations.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1173-2563
DOI:10.2165/00044011-199816020-00007