4.1 Article

Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Favipiravir Oral Solution and Tablet Formulations in Healthy Thai Volunteers

Journal

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY IN DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 14-20

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cpdd.1149

Keywords

bioequivalence; COVID-19; favipiravir; oral solutions; pharmacokinetics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the pharmacokinetics and safety of favipiravir oral solution and tablet formulations. The results showed bioequivalence between the two formulations, with the oral solution offering the advantage of easier swallowing for patients.
This study compared the pharmacokinetics and safety of favipiravir oral solution with those of tablet formulations, which were agents repurposed to treat nonsevere coronavirus disease 2019 in Thailand. In an open-label, single-dose, randomized, crossover study, 24 healthy subjects under fasting conditions were randomly assigned to a single dose of 200 mg of favipiravir, either as an oral solution of 200 mg/15 mL (test product) or a tablet (reference product), separated by a 7-day washout period. Fifteen plasma samples were collected over 12 hours after drug administration. Plasma favipiravir levels were quantified using in-house developed ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The test/reference geometric mean ratio along with 90%CI for the maximum plasma concentration, area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) to the time of the last quantifiable concentration, and AUC after single-dose administration, extrapolated to infinity were 115.3% (90%CI, 107.7%-123.3%), 100.4% (90%CI, 96.9%-104.0%), and 100.4% (90%CI, 96.8%-104.2%), respectively. These results were within the predefined acceptance criteria for bioequivalence (80.0%-125.0%). No adverse events were observed in either group. The oral solution formulation could offer the advantage of easier swallowing in broader patient groups.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available