Arzneimittelforschung 2008; 58(8): 405-409
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1296528
Analgesics · Anti-inflammatories · Antiphlogistics · Antirheumatic Drugs
Editio Cantor Verlag Aulendorf (Germany)

Bioequivalence Study of Two Capsule Formulations Containing Diacerein 50 mg in Healthy Human Subjects

Authors

  • Uday S Chakrabarty

    Bioequivalence Study Centre, Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
  • Uttam Mandal

    Bioequivalence Study Centre, Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
  • Uttam Bhaumik

    Bioequivalence Study Centre, Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
  • Bappaditya Chatterjee

    Bioequivalence Study Centre, Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
  • Animesh Ghosh

    Bioequivalence Study Centre, Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
  • Anirban Bose

    Bioequivalence Study Centre, Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
  • Tapan K Pal

    Bioequivalence Study Centre, Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
15. Dezember 2011 (online)

Preview

Abstract

This study presents the results of a two-way, two-period, two-treatment crossover investigation in 12 healthy Indian male subjects to assess the bioequivalence of two oral formulations containing 50 mg of diacerein (CAS 13739-02-1). Both formulations were administered orally as a single dose separated by a one-week washout period. The content of diacerein in plasma was determined by a validated HPLC method with UV detection. The formulations were compared using the parameters area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0–t), area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC0–∞), peak plasma concentration (Cmax), and time to reach peak plasma concentration (tmax). The results of this study indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the logarithmically transformed AUC0–∞ and Cmax values of the two preparations. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the logarithmically transformed AUC0–t, AUC0–∞ and Cmax were within the bioequivalence limit of 0.8–1.25 and the relative bioavailability of the test formulation was 96.63% of that of the reference formulation. Thus, these findings clearly indicate that the two formulations are bioequivalent in terms of rate and extent of drug absorption.