Capsule and Sprinkle Formulations of Lubiprostone Are Not Biologically Similar in Patients with Functional Constipation

Abstract

Introduction: Lubiprostone capsules are approved for managing three different chronic constipation conditions. A "sprinkle" formulation may facilitate use in individuals with difficulty swallowing capsules. Our objective was to evaluate the bioequivalence, pharmacokinetics (PK), and bioavailability of lubiprostone sprinkles vs lubiprostone capsules, compared with placebo.

Methods: A 1-week randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, bioequivalence study (study 302) and a single-dose PK and bioavailability crossover study (study 304) were conducted. In study 302, 522 subjects with chronic constipation were randomized to lubiprostone sprinkle 24 μg twice daily (BID), lubiprostone capsule 24 μg BID, or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was observed spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) counts (equivalence defined as showing the 90% confidence interval [CI] of the "between-group SBM ratio" to be contained within 0.8-1.25). Study 304 included two cohorts of healthy volunteers randomized to a single 48-μg lubiprostone dose, sprinkle, or capsule (n = 35) or to a single 48-μg sprinkle dose, in fed or fasted state (n = 14).

Results: Both lubiprostone formulations significantly improved SBM count (sprinkle, 4.82 ± 3.66, P = 0.002; capsule, 5.74 ± 3.79, P < 0.0001) vs placebo (3.68 ± 2.16), but equivalent efficacy was not demonstrated, with a 90% CI for the SBM count ratio of 0.69-0.95. Quantifiable PK data on lubiprostone were limited; however, overall exposure to the M3 metabolite was approximately 44% higher with sprinkles vs capsules under fasted conditions (geometric mean ratio 1.441 [90% CI, 1.166, 1.782]), and exposure with the sprinkle formulation was 11% lower in the fed state vs the fasted state (geometric mean ratio 0.888 [90% CI, 0.675, 1.168]). Both formulations were generally well tolerated.

Conclusion: Despite the significant improvement in SBM counts vs placebo, the sprinkle formulation did not demonstrate bioequivalence to the capsule formulation in either pharmacodynamic or PK key parameters.

Trial registration: Study 302: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03097861; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03097861 ; Study 304: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03010631; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03010631 .

Keywords: Bioequivalence; Constipation; Lubiprostone; Pharmacokinetics; Sprinkled formulation.

Figures

Fig. 1

Design and flow of the bioequivalence study, study 302 (a), and the pharmacokinetic study, study 304 (b). BID twice daily

Fig. 2

Mean (SD) SBM count at week 1 vs baseline in the PP population, study 302. Lubi lubiprostone, PBO placebo, PP per protocol, SBM spontaneous bowel movement, SD standard deviation