Gintautas Gumbrevičius

Comparison of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of two recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor formulations after single subcutaneous administration to healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE The aim of this randomized, single dose, two-period crossover study with two weeks wash-out period was the demonstration of bioequivalence of two recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rG-CSF) formulations after subcutaneous administration of 300μg comparing their pharmacokinetic (primary endpoints AUC0-24, AUC0-∞ and Cmax) and pharmacodynamic (primary endpoints ANC AUC0-72, ANC AUC0-∞ and ANCmax) profiles in healthy male subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 36 (23.0±6.0 years, 76.6±7.2kg) healthy subjects were recruited. Using a 1:1 randomization ratio, subjects were randomly assigned to one of two possible treatment-sequence groups to receive the single dose of test formulation (Gp-02) and reference product (Neupogen™) concentrations were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) up to 24h and the Absolute Neutrophil Count (ANC) was determined using hematology analyzer Coulter STKS™ (Beckman Coulter) up to 72h after injection. The geometric mean of primary pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variables were considered bioequivalent if the 90% confidence intervals (CI) would fall in the bioequivalence range of 80%-125%. RESULTS AUC0-24 (ratio of means 103.4, 90% CI: 95.6-111.9), AUC0-∞ (103.4, 90% CI: 95.7-111.7), Cmax (99.6, 90% CI: 89.0-111.4), ANC AUC0-72 (100.0, 90% CI: 96.6-103.5), ANC AUC0-∞ (100.8, 90% CI: 96.5-105.3), and ANCmax (100.2, 90% CI: 95.4-105.1) were determined. Single doses of test and reference formulations were well tolerated. The incidence of AEs was equally distributed across treatment groups with the most frequent AEs being headache, fever, and back pain. CONCLUSIONS The study results demonstrated the bioequivalence of Gp-02, a new formulation of filgrastim, and the reference product Neupogen™.

Impact of the World Health Organization Pain Treatment Guidelines and the European Medicines Agency Safety Recommendations on Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Use in Lithuania: An Observational Study

Background and objective: Irrational use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is the main cause of adverse effects-associated hospitalizations among all medication groups leading to extremely increased costs for health care. Pharmacoepidemiological studies can partly reveal such issues and encourage further decisions. Therefore, the aim of our study was to evaluate the utilization of non-opioid analgesics (ATC classification N02B and M01A) in Lithuania, and to compare it with that of other Baltic and Scandinavian countries in terms of compliance to the WHO pain treatment guidelines and the EMA safety recommendations on NSAID use. Materials and methods: The dispensing data were obtained from the sales analysis software provider in the Baltic countries (SoftDent, Ltd., Kaunas, Lithuania); State Medicine Control Agencies of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia; Norwegian Prescription Database; Swedish Database for Medicines; and Danish Prescription Database. Data included the utilization of both prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Utilization was expressed in defined daily doses (DDD)/1000 inhabitants/day. Results: During the 11-year period, the utilization of drugs belonging to the N02B and M01A groups increased by 22.8%, from 58.37 in 2005 to 71.68 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day in 2016 in Lithuania. Contrary to the WHO guidelines on pain management, all Baltic countries were more likely to use NSAIDs than other analgesics and antipyretics: in 2015, the drugs of the M01A group were used 6.04, 5.79, and 6.11 times more than those of N02B in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, respectively, whereas the Scandinavian countries preferred the N02B to the M01A group: in Denmark and Sweden, the utilization of other analgesics and antipyretics was 2.33 and 1.24, respectively, times higher than that of NSAIDs. In Norway, the use of both groups was similar. In the Scandinavian countries, paracetamol was the analgesic of first choice, whereas, in Lithuania, it took only the third place. The most popular drug in Lithuania was diclofenac, and its utilization accounted for 30.04% of all non-opioid analgesics in 2016. Although the European Medicines Agency (EMA) restricted the use of certain NSAIDs, i.e., cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, nimesulide, and diclofenac, their use consistently increased by 15.91, 2.83, and 1.41 times, respectively, showing incompliance with the international guidelines. Conclusions: Neither the EMA safety policy on NSAID use nor the WHO pain treatment guidelines had a sufficient impact on the rational use of NSAIDs in Lithuania. The use of NSAIDs restricted by the EMA (diclofenac, COX-2 inhibitors, nimesulide, and piroxicam) remains high or even increases, while the utilization of safer alternatives (paracetamol and naproxen) remains relatively low as compared with the Scandinavian countries. Incompliance with international guidelines may result in increased morbidity, mortality and higher costs for health care.