P. Bourget et al., STUDY OF THE BIOEQUIVALENCE OF 2 CONTROLLED-RELEASE FORMULATIONS OF MORPHINE, International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 33(11), 1995, pp. 588-594
The management and treatment of chronic pain in cancer patients is a c
lear priority for practitioners regularly confronted by the situation.
This investigation was carried out to evaluate the bioavailability of
a recent sustained-release (SR) formulation of morphine sulphate (30
mg), Skenan, consisted of capsules, relative to a recognized product,
Moscontin which is a matrix tablet SR form. The bioavailability was ca
rried out on 12 healthy male volunteers who received a single dose (30
mg) of the test (T) and the recognized (R) products in a randomized b
alanced 2-way crossover design. After dosing, serial blood samples wer
e collected for a period of 24 hours. Morphine and its main metabolite
s (i.e. glucuronides M6G and M3G) were assayed by high-performance liq
uid chromatography using a ion-pair formation. Data were analyzed by a
noncompartmental method and were compared by ANOVA method and, each s
ubject taken as his own control, by the Wilcoxon T test. Mean bioavail
ability of the T formulation was greater than that of R. The parametri
c confidence intervals (90%) of the mean values of the pharmacokinetic
s characteristics for T : R ratio were in each case without the bioequ
ivalence acceptable ranges of 0.8 - 1.25 and 0.70 - 1.43 respectively
for AUCs (i.e. AUC(0-->24h) and AUC(0-->infinity) and C-max, while con
fidence intervals symmetric of Westlake (CIW90%) was invariably greate
r than 20%, i.e. 62.8, 71.1 and 39.3% respectively. Further, the test
formulation was not found bioequivalent to the reference formulation b
y Schuirmann's 2 one-sided t-test. These results justify the conclusio
n of the non-bioequivalence of the two forms at the unit dose of 30 mg
. This information must be considered above all as a dosage adjustment
tool enabling use of the two forms by application of a correction fac
tor of the order of 15% when prescribing Skenan in comparison with Mos
contin. Assessment is needed of the possible clinical consequences of
this finding.