Download PDF
Arzneimittelforschung 2009; 59(5): 238-242
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1296391
Muscle Relaxants
Editio Cantor Verlag Aulendorf (Germany)

Bioequivalence Study with Two Different Oral Formulations of Methocarbamol in Healthy Subjects

A mono-centre, comparative, randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-way crossover study
Ronald Schlegelmilch
1   Dr. Kade Pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH, Berlin (Germany)
,
A Eydeler Urte
1   Scope International AG, Hamburg (Germany)
,
Martin Barkworth
1   Scope International AG, Hamburg (Germany)
,
Anika Radeke
1   Scope International AG, Hamburg (Germany)
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
13 December 2011 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic profile of a new oral methocarbamol (CAS 532-03-6) formulation (DoloVisano® Methocarbamol 750 mg Tabletten) to that of a registered reference product and to demonstrate the bioequivalence of the formulations with respect to rate and extent of methocarbamol exposure.

Method:

This bioequivalence trial was based on an open-label, single-dose, randomized, two-treatment, two-period crossover design. In each period 32 male or female healthy white volunteers received 2 tablets (2 × 750 mg methocarbamol) of either the test (a) or the reference (b) product after an overnight fasting of at least 12 h. Breakfast was served 4 h after dosing. The two treatment sequences were separated by a wash-out phase of 6 days. Blood samples were drawn prior to the first single administration and at 20 time points over 16 h thereafter, in order to create a pharmacokinetic profile. Adverse events were recorded at predefined time points during the study period.

Results:

After a single dose of 1 500 mg methocarbamol the extent of exposure as well as the exposure rate for the test and the reference product were in good agreement. The extent of exposure in terms of AUC0–tz amounted to 58.43 µg/ml • h for the test product and to 58.21 µg/ml • h (geometric means) for the reference. Cmax reached values of 23.71 µg/ml for test and 23.32 µg/ml (geometric means) for the reference. The ratio and the 90% confidence intervals of AUC0–tz (a/b: 100.38% [95.08%–105.96%]) and of Cmax (a/b: 101.68% [91.68%–112.77%]) lay well within the predefined acceptance range of 80–125%. These results strongly indicate that the formulations tested are bioequivalent and therefore exchangeable. During the study neither unexpected nor severe or serious adverse events were reported. Likewise there were no clinically relevant findings with respect to vital signs and ECG.

Conclusion:

In this study bioequivalence could be demonstrated with respect to rate and extent of methocarbamol exposure.

Key words

CAS 532-03-6 - Centrally acting muscle relaxants - DoloVisano® - Methocarbamol, bioequivalence, pharmacokinetics
 

  • References

  • 1 O’Dougherty DS, Shields CD. Methocarbamol: a new agent in treatment of neurological and neuromuscular diseases. JAMA. 1958; 167: 160-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Murphy RS. US patent no. 2,770,649, 1956.
    PubMed
  • 3 Martindale The Complete Drug Reference. 34th Edition London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 4 The Merck Index, 12th Edition. Budavari S. (Ed.). White-house Station (NJ): Merck Res. Lab.; 1996.
    PubMed
  • 5 Fachinformation. Ortoton® Tabletten. Bastian-Werk GmbH; July 2006.
    PubMed
  • 6 Truitt EB, Little JM. A pharmacological comparison of methocarbamol (AHR-85), the monocarbamate of 3-ortho-methoxyphenoxy-l,2-propandiol with chemically related interneuronal depressant drugs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1958; 122: 239-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Roszkowsi AP. A pharmacological comparison of therapeutically useful centrally acting skeletal muscle relaxants. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1960; 129: 75-81
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ziegelgänsberger W, Strohmeier M. Pharmakologische Schmerztherapie Teil 4 (IGOST Fortbild.). Orthop Rheum. 2007; 2: 66-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bruce RB, Turnbull LB, Newman JH. Metabolism of methocarbamol in rat, dog and human. J Pharm Sci. 1971; 60 (l) 104-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98; July 2002.
    PubMed
  • 11 Shah VP, Midha KK, Dighe S, Mc Gilveray IJ, Skelly JP, Yacobi A et al. Analytical method validation: Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokin. 1991; 16: 249-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Shah VP, Midha KK, Findlay JWA, Hill HM, Hulse JD, McGilveray IJ et al. Bioanalytical method validation: A revisit with a decade of progress. Pharm Res. 2000; 17 (12) 1551-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation. Bethesda (MD): FDA; May 2001
    PubMed
  • 14 Hauschke D, Steinijans VW, Diletti E. A distribution free procedure for the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1992; 30 (Suppl. 1) 37-43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar