Bioequivalence study of Rosuvastatin in healthy volunteers after a single dose on an empty stomach

Aim. To assess comparative pharmacokinetics and establish bioequivalence of film-coated Rosuvastatin 20 mg (OOO NTFF "POLYSAN", Russia) (T) and film-coated Crestor® 20 mg (AstraZeneca UK Limited, UK) (R) after a single dose of 20 mg on an empty stomach in healthy volunteers, as well as to study their safety and tolerability.

Material and methods. This open-label, randomized, crossover, two-period study of comparative pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of T and R following a single dose in the fasted state was conducted in 46 healthy volunteers at a single center. After randomization, volunteers in each Study Period received a single 20 mg rosuvastatin dose in a different sequence (TR or RT). Periods I and II were separated by a 14-day washout period. Plasma rosuvastatin concentrations were determined by high-liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. Following pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated: area under the concentration-time from 0 to 72 h (AUC_0-t) and the maximum concentration (C_max). The drugs were considered bioequivalent if the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the T/R geometric mean ratios for C_max and AUC_0-t were in the range of 80-125%. Safety assessment included analysis of vital signs, physical examination, laboratory tests, 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG), and registration of adverse events (AEs) during the study.

Results. Of the 46 randomized volunteers, 44 comprised the safety population. Forty two participants completed the study without significant protocol deviations and comprised the population for pharmacokinetic, statistical analysis and bioequivalence. The values of pharmacokinetic parameters T and R were comparable. The 90% CIs for C_max and AUC_0-t were within the acceptable bioequivalence range of 80,00-125,00% as follows: 91,71-107,41% and 91,58-115,83%, respectively. A total of 2 AEs were recorded in 1 participant after receiving the reference drug. The frequency of AEs did not differ between the groups. No clinically significant deviations in vital signs, physical examinations, laboratory tests, or ECG data were observed in either group during the study.

Conclusion. T and R were considered bioequivalent and demonstrated similar safety profiles.

1. Chong B, Jayabaskaran J, Jauhari SM, et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases: projections from 2025 to 2050. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2024:zwae281. doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwae281. Epub ahead of print.

2. Munir A, Kousar I, Iqbal N, et al. The Effect of Hyperlipidemia on Cardiovascular Diseases: A Risk Factor in Cardiovascular Diseases at FMH Hospital Lahore. Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research. 2024;4(2):1057-61. doi:10.61919/jhrr.v4i2.1014.

3. Ezhov MV, Kukharchuk VV, Sergienko IV, et al. Disorders of lipid metabolism. Clinical Guidelines 2023. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2023;28(5):5471. (In Russ.) doi:10.15829/1560-4071-2023-5471. EDN: YVZOWJ.

4. Emberson J, Whincup P, Morris R, et al. Evaluating the impact of population and high-risk strategies for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. European heart journal. 2004;25(6):484-91. doi:10.1016/j.ehj.2003.11.012.

5. Chapman MJ, Ginsberg HN, Amarenc, P, et al. for the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease: evidence and guidance for management. European heart journal. 2011;32(11):1345-61. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr112.

6. Trialists C, Baigent C, Blackwell L, et al. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2010;376(9753):1670-81. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61350-5.

7. Catapano AL, Graham I, De Backer G, et al. ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias. European Heart Journal. 2016;37(39):2999-3058. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw272.

8. Wazir M, Olanrewaju OA, Yahya M, et al. Lipid Disorders and Cardiovascular Risk: A Comprehensive Analysis of Current Perspectives. Cureus. 2023;15(12): e51395. doi:10.7759/cureus.51395.

9. Shaheen S, Elserafy ASH, Amin M, et al. Brand versus Generic Rosuvastatin in Egyptian Patients with Hyperlipidemia; Cost-Minimization Analysis. Int J Clin Med. 2019;10:631-8. doi:10.4236/ijcm.2019.1012052.

10. Adams SP, Sekhon SS, Wright JM. Lipid-lowering efficacy of rosuvastatin. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014; Issue 11. Art. No.: CD010254. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010254.pub2.

11. Betteridge DJ, Gibson JM, Sager PT. Comparison of effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on the achievement of combined C-reactive protein (<2 mg/l) and low — density lipoprotein cholesterol (<70 mg/dl) targets in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (from the ANDROMEDA study). Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:1245-8. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.05.044.

12. Jones PH, Davidson MH, Stein EA, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin across doses (STELLAR trial). Am J Cardiol. 2003;92:152-60. doi:10.1016/S0002-9149(03)00530-7.

13. Milionis H, Rizos E, Kostapanos M, et al. Treating to target patients with primary hyperlipidaemia: Comparison of the effects of ATOrvastatin and ROSuvastatin (the ATOROS study). Current medical research and opinion. 2006;22:1123-31. doi:10.1185/030079906x112462.

14. Herregods MC, Daubresse JC, Michel G, et al. Discovery Belux: comparison of rosuvastatin with atorvastatin in hypercholesterolaemia. Acta cardiologica. 2008;63(4):493-9. doi:10.2143/AC.63.4.2033049.

15. Ballantyne CM, Weiss R, Moccetti T, et al. Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg alone or in combination with ezetimibe in patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (results from the EXPLORER study). The American journal of cardiology. 2007;99(5):673-80. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.10.022.

16. Konradi AO, Alieva AS. Hypertension and dyslipidemia. Parallel risk factor control: role of fixed combination. Arterial’naya Gipertenziya. 2021;27(3):376-83. (In Russ.) doi:10.18705/1607-419X2021-27-3-376-383.

17. Romodanovskii DP, Dranitsyna MA, Goryachev DV, et al. Planning the design and estimating the results of investigations of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs by example of rosuvastatin. Eksp Klin Farmakol. 2015;78(6):19-25. (In Russ.)

18. Romodanovsky DP, Goryachev DV, Khokhlov AL, et al. Planning and evaluation of bioequivalence study of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Medical News of North Caucasus. 2020; 15(2):247-51. (In Russ.) doi:10.14300/mnnc.2020.15058.