Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T00:00:29.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

81 Bioequivalence of a Manipulation-Resistant Immediate-Release Amphetamine Sulfate Formulation Compared with Reference Standard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2019

Steve Caras
Affiliation:
Vice President Clinical Development, Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Atlanta, GA, USA
Terrilyn Sharpe
Affiliation:
Director of Clinical Development, Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Atlanta, GA, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Study Objectives

We compared the bioavailability of racemic amphetamine (d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine) from a manipulation-resistant immediate-release (IR) amphetamine sulfate capsule (AR19) versus amphetamine sulfate IR tablets (reference).

Method

In this open-label, randomized, two-period, two-treatment, two-sequence, crossover study, 36 healthy volunteers aged 18–45 received a single dose (20-mg capsule) of AR19 in one period and a single dose (2 x 10-mg tablets) of reference in another period, after a 10-hour overnight fast. Each drug administration was separated by a washout period of at least 6days. Bioequivalence for d- and l-amphetamine was assessed using time to peak concentration (Tmax), peak concentration in plasma (Cmax), and area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time-zero to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast) and extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf).

Results

All 36 volunteers completed both treatment sequences. Mean (standard deviation; SD) Tmax for d- and l-amphetamine was similar for AR19 (2.84[1.05]; 3.05[1.22], respectively) and reference (2.52[0.75]; 2.75[1.00], respectively). The geometric least-squares mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals were within the boundary of 80%–125% for bioequivalence for Cmax (d-amphetamine, 98.35% [96.12–100.64]; l-amphetamine, 98.82% [96.42–101.28]), AUClast (d-amphetamine, 99.45% [96.92–102.05]; l-amphetamine, 99.29% [96.55–102.10]), and AUCinf (d-amphetamine, 99.50%[96.77–102.30]; l-amphetamine, 99.23% [96.06–102.50]). A total of 13 mild adverse events were reported by 7 volunteers (AEs; AR19, n=5; reference, n=8). No serious AEs were reported.

Conclusion

AR19 was well tolerated and was bioequivalent to reference when administered as a 20-mg dose in healthy volunteers.

Funding Acknowledgements: This study was funded by Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC.

Type
Abstracts
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019