4.3 Article

A randomized crossover study to determine bioequivalence of generic and brand name nevirapine, zidovudine, and lamivudine in HIV-negative women in India

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.qai.0000199098.95967.ab

Keywords

bioequivalence; generic antiretrovirals; pharmacokinetics; nevirapine; zidovudine; lamivudine

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [U01-AI27661] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Low-cost generic antiretroviral drugs are available in resource-limited settings for treatment of HIV infections. However, few bioequivalence data in specific populations in which these generics are likely to be used are available. We conducted a randomized crossover bioequivalence study of generic and brand name formulations of nevirapine, zidovudine, and lamivudine in HIV-negative Indian women using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria. Subjects took single doses of all formulations separated by a 14-day washout period. Plasma concentrations were measured over 96 hours during each study period. Average bioequivalence was determined using natural log-transformed maximum concentration (C-max) and area-under-the-concentration-time curve (AUC) mean ratio data. Fifteen Indian women were enrolled. The 90% confidence intervals for nevirapine (14 subjects) and lamivudine (15 subjects) C-max, AUC from 0 to the last measurable time point (AUC(0-t)), and AUC from 0 to infinity (AUC(0-infinity)) mean ratios and zidovudine (15 subjects) AUC(0-t) and AUC(0-infinity) mean ratios were all within 0.80 to 1.25. However, the 90% confidence interval for zidovudine C-max mean ratio was 0.70 to 1.46. Generic and brand name nevirapine and lamivudine met FDA average bioequivalence criteria. Lack of average bioequivalence for zidovudine was found for C-max but is not expected to be clinically significant, because the total AUC values were similar between formulations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available