Status and phase
Conditions
Treatments
About
The null hypothesis is that there is a difference in the the relative rate and extent of absorption into the systemic circulation of Triomune and brand-name Stavudine/Lamivudine/Nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans and the alternative hypothesis is that there is no difference in the the relative rate and extent of absorption into the systemic circulation of Triomune and brand-name Stavudine/Lamivudine/Nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. This is a non-inferiority study.
Full description
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®). 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 AUC0-12h and Cmax. Bioequivalence was defined as a geometric mean ratio between the generic and brand-name within the 90% confidence interval of 0.8-1.25.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
20 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal