Randomised, crossover clinical trial, in healthy volunteers, to compare the systemic availability of two topical intranasal budesonide formulations

• Main Authors: Pena Maria, Algorta Jaime, Francisco Silvia, Abajo Zurine, Sanz Emilio
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2008-06-01
• Series: Trials
• Online Access: http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/34

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Budesonide has a long history as intranasal drug, with many marketed products. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence and safety comparability between them. Given that systemic availability significantly varies from formulations, the clinical comparability of diverse products comes to be of clinical interest and a regulatory requirement. The aim of the present study was to compare the systemic availability, pharmacodynamic effect, and safety of two intranasal budesonide formulations for the treatment of rhinitis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in this randomised, controlled, crossover, clinical trial. On two separated days, subjects received a single dose of 512 μg budesonide (4 puffs <it>per </it>nostril) from each of the assayed devices (Budesonida nasal 64^®, Aldo-Union, Spain and Rhinocort 64^®, AstraZeneca, Spain). Budesonide availability was determined by the measurement of budesonide plasma concentration. The pharmacodynamic effect on the hypothalamic-adrenal axis was evaluated as both plasma and urine cortisol levels. Adverse events were tabulated and described. Budesonide availability between formulations was compared by the calculation of 90%CI intervals of the ratios of the main pharmacokinetic parameters describing budesonide bioavailability. Plasma cortisol concentration-time curves were compared by means of a GLM for Repeated Measures. Urine cortisol excretion between formulations was compared through the Wilcoxon's test.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All the enroled volunteers successfully completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable in terms of AUC_t(2.6 ± 1.5 vs 2.2 ± 0.7), AUC_i(2.9 ± 1.5 vs 2.4 ± 0.7), t_max(0.4 ± 0.1 vs 0.4 ± 0.2), C_max/AUC_i(0.3 ± 0.1 vs 0.3 ± 0.0), and MRT (5.0 ± 1.4 vs 4.5 ± 0.6), but not in the case of C_max(0.9 ± 0.3 vs 0.7 ± 0.2) and t_1/2(3.7 ± 1.8 vs 2.9 ± 0.4). The pharmacodynamic effects, measured as the effect over plasma and urine cortisol, were also comparables between both formulations. No severe adverse events were reported and tolerance was comparable between formulations.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The systemic availability of intranasal budesonide was comparable for both formulations in terms of most pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacodynamic effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was also similar. Side effects were scarce and equivalent between the two products. This methodology to compare different budesonide-containing devices is reliable and easy to perform, and should be recommended for similar products intented to be marketed or already on the market.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>No Eudra CT: 2005-003727-39</p>