Steady state bioequivalence of generic and innovator formulations of stavudine, lamivudine, and nevirapine in HIV-infected Ugandan adults

Abstract

Background: Generic antiretroviral therapy is the mainstay of HIV treatment in resource-limited settings, yet there is little evidence confirming the bioequivalence of generic and brand name formulations. We compared the steady-state pharmacokinetics of lamivudine, stavudine and nevirapine in HIV-infected subjects who were receiving a generic formulation (Triomune) or the corresponding brand formulations (Epivir, Zerit, and Viramune).

Methodology/principal findings: An open-label, randomized, crossover study was carried out in 18 HIV-infected Ugandan subjects stabilized on Triomune-40. Subjects received lamivudine (150 mg), stavudine (40 mg), and nevirapine (200 mg) in either the generic or brand formulation twice a day for 30 days, before switching to the other formulation. At the end of each treatment period, blood samples were collected over 12 h for pharmacokinetic analysis. The main outcome measures were the mean AUC(0-12h) and C(max). Bioequivalence was defined as a geometric mean ratio between the generic and brand name within the 90% confidence interval of 0.8-1.25. The geometric mean ratios and the 90% confidence intervals were: stavudine C(max), 1.3 (0.99-1.71) and AUC(0-12h), 1.1 (0.87-1.38); lamivudine C(max), 0.8 (0.63-0.98) and AUC(0-12h), 0.8 (0.65-0.99); and nevirapine C(max), 1.1 (0.95-1.23) and AUC(0-12h), 1.1 (0.95-1.31). The generic formulation was not statistically bioequivalent to the brand formulations during steady state, although exposures were comparable. A mixed random effects model identified about 50% intersubject variability in the pharmacokinetic parameters.

Conclusions/significant findings: These findings provide support for the use of Triomune in resource-limited settings, although identification of the sources of intersubject variability in these populations is critical.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Plasma concentration-time profiles for brand and generic stavudine, lamivudine and nevirapine.

Mean plasma concentration-time profiles of (A) stavudine, (B) lamivudine and (C) nevirapine in 18 subjects after oral administration of brand (closed symbol) or generic (open symbol) formulation. Each value represents the arithmetic mean±SE for 18 subjects in each arm.