4.7 Article

Dasatinib anhydrate containing oral formulation improves variability and bioavailability in humans

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41375-023-02045-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to develop a novel anhydrate formulation of dasatinib in order to improve its absorption and reduce pharmacokinetic variability. The results showed that the new formulation had better bioavailability and drug-drug interaction compared to the old monohydrate formulation, which may lead to improved clinical outcomes.
Dasatinib monohydrate indicated for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia displays pH-dependent solubility. The aim of reported development program of novel dasatinib anhydrate containing formulation was to demonstrate improved absorption and lower pharmacokinetic variability compared to dasatinib monohydrate. In a bioavailability study comparing formulations containing 110.6 mg and 140 mg of dasatinib as anhydrate and monohydrate, respectively, both C-max and AUC of dasatinib were within standard 80.00-125.00% range, while the intra- and inter-subject variability for AUC(0-inf )after the test product was approximately 3-fold and 1.5-fold less than after the reference, respectively.In a drug-drug interaction study, omeprazole 40 mg reduced the mean AUC(0-inf) of dasatinib by 19%, when the test was ingested 2 h before the 5th omeprazole dose. This decrease of exposure is clinically irrelevant and substantially less than after the reference. Co-prescription analysis supports the importance of pH-dependent solubility of dasatinib, as >21% of patients were treated concomitantly with a PPI and dasatinib despite warnings against this co-medication in the SmPC.The novel dasatinib anhydrate containing formulation demonstrated improved absorption and less pharmacokinetic variability compared to dasatinib monohydrate product, which may translate into improved clinical outcomes, although this needs to be proven by an appropriate trial.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据