Lack of bioequivalence between different formulations of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine and the fixed-dose combination of isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine: The V-HeFT paradox

S. William Tam, Michael L. Sabolinski, Manuel Worcel, Milton Packer, Jay N Cohn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether the apparent discrepancy between the efficacy of the combination of isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) and hydralazine demonstrated in the first V-HeFT trial (V-HeFT I) and that in V-HeFT II could be explained by pharmacokinetic differences in the study drug formulations, and to compare the pharmacokinetic profile of the fixed-dose combination of ISDN/hydralazine (FDC ISDN/HYD; BiDil®) formulation used in A-HeFT with that of the V-HeFT study drug formulations. Study participants and methods: A bioequivalence study was performed (n = 18-19 per group) comparing the ISDN and hydralazine formulations used in V-HeFT I, V-HeFT II and A-HeFT in healthy volunteer men and women aged 18-40 years. In phase A of the study, subjects received a reference solution of hydralazine hydrochloride/ISDN (37.5mg/10mg) orally. Slow acetylators were identified and randomised into three groups in phase B to receive a single oral dose of identical amounts of hydralazine hydrochloride/ISDN (37.5mg/10mg) from either (i) a hydralazine capsule plus an ISDN tablet (the V-HeFT I formulation); (ii) a hydralazine tablet plus an ISDN tablet (the V-HeFT II formulation); or (iii) FDC ISDN/HYD (the A-HeFT formulation). Blood/plasma concentrations of hydralazine and ISDN were determined from the blood samples taken between 0 and 36 hours. Results: In phase B, the maximum observed concentrations (Cmax) were 65.9 ± 53.9, 28.2 ± 15.8 and 51.5 ± 54.3 ng/mL of unchanged hydralazine, and 23.1 ± 12.3, 21.7 ± 13.4 and 26.7 ± 18.7 ng/mL of ISDN for the V-HeFT I, V-HeFT II and A-HeFT formulations, respectively. The area under the blood/plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) values were 32.6 ± 13.4, 23.3 ± 15.1 and 32.6 ± 18.5 ng • h/mL of hydralazine, and 24.4 ± 9.0, 24.8 ± 8.0 and 23.5 ± 6.3 ng • h/mL of ISDN for the V-HeFT I, V-HeFT II and A-HeFT formulations, respectively. For comparison of bioequivalence, the Cmax and AUC were normalised to 65kg bodyweight, and point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of the Cmax ratios, AUC ratios and ratios of the AUC in phase B normalised for clearance by the AUC in phase A (AUCR) were calculated. The three formulations were not bioequivalent based on the Cmax and AUC comparisons. Conclusions: The blood concentrations of hydralazine obtained with the tablet formulation tested in V-HeFT II were markedly lower than those obtained with the capsule formulation tested in V-HeFT I or the FDC ISDN/HYD single tablet used in A-HeFT. The apparently modest effect on survival observed in V-HeFT II could be explained in part by the poor hydralazine bioavailability of the tablet preparation used in this trial. ISDN exposures were similar in the two trials. The ISDN-hydralazine formulation used in V-HeFT II was not bioequivalent to the formulation used in V-HeFT I or to the FDC ISDN/HYD that had demonstrated a significant survival benefit in A-HeFT.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)885-895
Number of pages11
JournalClinical Pharmacokinetics
Volume46
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 26 2007

Fingerprint

Isosorbide Dinitrate
Hydralazine
Therapeutic Equivalency
Tablets
Area Under Curve
Drug Compounding
isosorbide-hydralazine combination
Capsules
Pharmacokinetics

Cite this

Lack of bioequivalence between different formulations of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine and the fixed-dose combination of isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine : The V-HeFT paradox. / Tam, S. William; Sabolinski, Michael L.; Worcel, Manuel; Packer, Milton; Cohn, Jay N.

In: Clinical Pharmacokinetics, Vol. 46, No. 10, 26.09.2007, p. 885-895.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{084b8abfd05b42b6840464f4412561e6,
title = "Lack of bioequivalence between different formulations of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine and the fixed-dose combination of isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine: The V-HeFT paradox",
abstract = "Objective: To investigate whether the apparent discrepancy between the efficacy of the combination of isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) and hydralazine demonstrated in the first V-HeFT trial (V-HeFT I) and that in V-HeFT II could be explained by pharmacokinetic differences in the study drug formulations, and to compare the pharmacokinetic profile of the fixed-dose combination of ISDN/hydralazine (FDC ISDN/HYD; BiDil{\circledR}) formulation used in A-HeFT with that of the V-HeFT study drug formulations. Study participants and methods: A bioequivalence study was performed (n = 18-19 per group) comparing the ISDN and hydralazine formulations used in V-HeFT I, V-HeFT II and A-HeFT in healthy volunteer men and women aged 18-40 years. In phase A of the study, subjects received a reference solution of hydralazine hydrochloride/ISDN (37.5mg/10mg) orally. Slow acetylators were identified and randomised into three groups in phase B to receive a single oral dose of identical amounts of hydralazine hydrochloride/ISDN (37.5mg/10mg) from either (i) a hydralazine capsule plus an ISDN tablet (the V-HeFT I formulation); (ii) a hydralazine tablet plus an ISDN tablet (the V-HeFT II formulation); or (iii) FDC ISDN/HYD (the A-HeFT formulation). Blood/plasma concentrations of hydralazine and ISDN were determined from the blood samples taken between 0 and 36 hours. Results: In phase B, the maximum observed concentrations (Cmax) were 65.9 ± 53.9, 28.2 ± 15.8 and 51.5 ± 54.3 ng/mL of unchanged hydralazine, and 23.1 ± 12.3, 21.7 ± 13.4 and 26.7 ± 18.7 ng/mL of ISDN for the V-HeFT I, V-HeFT II and A-HeFT formulations, respectively. The area under the blood/plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) values were 32.6 ± 13.4, 23.3 ± 15.1 and 32.6 ± 18.5 ng • h/mL of hydralazine, and 24.4 ± 9.0, 24.8 ± 8.0 and 23.5 ± 6.3 ng • h/mL of ISDN for the V-HeFT I, V-HeFT II and A-HeFT formulations, respectively. For comparison of bioequivalence, the Cmax and AUC were normalised to 65kg bodyweight, and point estimates and 90{\%} confidence intervals of the Cmax ratios, AUC ratios and ratios of the AUC in phase B normalised for clearance by the AUC in phase A (AUCR) were calculated. The three formulations were not bioequivalent based on the Cmax and AUC comparisons. Conclusions: The blood concentrations of hydralazine obtained with the tablet formulation tested in V-HeFT II were markedly lower than those obtained with the capsule formulation tested in V-HeFT I or the FDC ISDN/HYD single tablet used in A-HeFT. The apparently modest effect on survival observed in V-HeFT II could be explained in part by the poor hydralazine bioavailability of the tablet preparation used in this trial. ISDN exposures were similar in the two trials. The ISDN-hydralazine formulation used in V-HeFT II was not bioequivalent to the formulation used in V-HeFT I or to the FDC ISDN/HYD that had demonstrated a significant survival benefit in A-HeFT.",
author = "Tam, {S. William} and Sabolinski, {Michael L.} and Manuel Worcel and Milton Packer and Cohn, {Jay N}",
year = "2007",
month = "9",
day = "26",
doi = "10.2165/00003088-200746100-00006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "885--895",
journal = "Clinical Pharmacokinetics",
issn = "0312-5963",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lack of bioequivalence between different formulations of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine and the fixed-dose combination of isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine

T2 - The V-HeFT paradox

AU - Tam, S. William

AU - Sabolinski, Michael L.

AU - Worcel, Manuel

AU - Packer, Milton

AU - Cohn, Jay N

PY - 2007/9/26

Y1 - 2007/9/26

N2 - Objective: To investigate whether the apparent discrepancy between the efficacy of the combination of isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) and hydralazine demonstrated in the first V-HeFT trial (V-HeFT I) and that in V-HeFT II could be explained by pharmacokinetic differences in the study drug formulations, and to compare the pharmacokinetic profile of the fixed-dose combination of ISDN/hydralazine (FDC ISDN/HYD; BiDil®) formulation used in A-HeFT with that of the V-HeFT study drug formulations. Study participants and methods: A bioequivalence study was performed (n = 18-19 per group) comparing the ISDN and hydralazine formulations used in V-HeFT I, V-HeFT II and A-HeFT in healthy volunteer men and women aged 18-40 years. In phase A of the study, subjects received a reference solution of hydralazine hydrochloride/ISDN (37.5mg/10mg) orally. Slow acetylators were identified and randomised into three groups in phase B to receive a single oral dose of identical amounts of hydralazine hydrochloride/ISDN (37.5mg/10mg) from either (i) a hydralazine capsule plus an ISDN tablet (the V-HeFT I formulation); (ii) a hydralazine tablet plus an ISDN tablet (the V-HeFT II formulation); or (iii) FDC ISDN/HYD (the A-HeFT formulation). Blood/plasma concentrations of hydralazine and ISDN were determined from the blood samples taken between 0 and 36 hours. Results: In phase B, the maximum observed concentrations (Cmax) were 65.9 ± 53.9, 28.2 ± 15.8 and 51.5 ± 54.3 ng/mL of unchanged hydralazine, and 23.1 ± 12.3, 21.7 ± 13.4 and 26.7 ± 18.7 ng/mL of ISDN for the V-HeFT I, V-HeFT II and A-HeFT formulations, respectively. The area under the blood/plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) values were 32.6 ± 13.4, 23.3 ± 15.1 and 32.6 ± 18.5 ng • h/mL of hydralazine, and 24.4 ± 9.0, 24.8 ± 8.0 and 23.5 ± 6.3 ng • h/mL of ISDN for the V-HeFT I, V-HeFT II and A-HeFT formulations, respectively. For comparison of bioequivalence, the Cmax and AUC were normalised to 65kg bodyweight, and point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of the Cmax ratios, AUC ratios and ratios of the AUC in phase B normalised for clearance by the AUC in phase A (AUCR) were calculated. The three formulations were not bioequivalent based on the Cmax and AUC comparisons. Conclusions: The blood concentrations of hydralazine obtained with the tablet formulation tested in V-HeFT II were markedly lower than those obtained with the capsule formulation tested in V-HeFT I or the FDC ISDN/HYD single tablet used in A-HeFT. The apparently modest effect on survival observed in V-HeFT II could be explained in part by the poor hydralazine bioavailability of the tablet preparation used in this trial. ISDN exposures were similar in the two trials. The ISDN-hydralazine formulation used in V-HeFT II was not bioequivalent to the formulation used in V-HeFT I or to the FDC ISDN/HYD that had demonstrated a significant survival benefit in A-HeFT.

AB - Objective: To investigate whether the apparent discrepancy between the efficacy of the combination of isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) and hydralazine demonstrated in the first V-HeFT trial (V-HeFT I) and that in V-HeFT II could be explained by pharmacokinetic differences in the study drug formulations, and to compare the pharmacokinetic profile of the fixed-dose combination of ISDN/hydralazine (FDC ISDN/HYD; BiDil®) formulation used in A-HeFT with that of the V-HeFT study drug formulations. Study participants and methods: A bioequivalence study was performed (n = 18-19 per group) comparing the ISDN and hydralazine formulations used in V-HeFT I, V-HeFT II and A-HeFT in healthy volunteer men and women aged 18-40 years. In phase A of the study, subjects received a reference solution of hydralazine hydrochloride/ISDN (37.5mg/10mg) orally. Slow acetylators were identified and randomised into three groups in phase B to receive a single oral dose of identical amounts of hydralazine hydrochloride/ISDN (37.5mg/10mg) from either (i) a hydralazine capsule plus an ISDN tablet (the V-HeFT I formulation); (ii) a hydralazine tablet plus an ISDN tablet (the V-HeFT II formulation); or (iii) FDC ISDN/HYD (the A-HeFT formulation). Blood/plasma concentrations of hydralazine and ISDN were determined from the blood samples taken between 0 and 36 hours. Results: In phase B, the maximum observed concentrations (Cmax) were 65.9 ± 53.9, 28.2 ± 15.8 and 51.5 ± 54.3 ng/mL of unchanged hydralazine, and 23.1 ± 12.3, 21.7 ± 13.4 and 26.7 ± 18.7 ng/mL of ISDN for the V-HeFT I, V-HeFT II and A-HeFT formulations, respectively. The area under the blood/plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) values were 32.6 ± 13.4, 23.3 ± 15.1 and 32.6 ± 18.5 ng • h/mL of hydralazine, and 24.4 ± 9.0, 24.8 ± 8.0 and 23.5 ± 6.3 ng • h/mL of ISDN for the V-HeFT I, V-HeFT II and A-HeFT formulations, respectively. For comparison of bioequivalence, the Cmax and AUC were normalised to 65kg bodyweight, and point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of the Cmax ratios, AUC ratios and ratios of the AUC in phase B normalised for clearance by the AUC in phase A (AUCR) were calculated. The three formulations were not bioequivalent based on the Cmax and AUC comparisons. Conclusions: The blood concentrations of hydralazine obtained with the tablet formulation tested in V-HeFT II were markedly lower than those obtained with the capsule formulation tested in V-HeFT I or the FDC ISDN/HYD single tablet used in A-HeFT. The apparently modest effect on survival observed in V-HeFT II could be explained in part by the poor hydralazine bioavailability of the tablet preparation used in this trial. ISDN exposures were similar in the two trials. The ISDN-hydralazine formulation used in V-HeFT II was not bioequivalent to the formulation used in V-HeFT I or to the FDC ISDN/HYD that had demonstrated a significant survival benefit in A-HeFT.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548823820&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548823820&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2165/00003088-200746100-00006

DO - 10.2165/00003088-200746100-00006

M3 - Article

C2 - 17854237

AN - SCOPUS:34548823820

VL - 46

SP - 885

EP - 895

JO - Clinical Pharmacokinetics

JF - Clinical Pharmacokinetics

SN - 0312-5963

IS - 10

ER -