CC BY
11# Research Results in Pharmacology
Research Results in Pharmacology 6(3): 21-26 UDC: 615.03:615.72 DOI 10.3897/rrpharmacology. 6.54929
3 Review Article
Review of bioequivalence studies of cholecalciferol drugs
Alexander L. Khokhlov1, Dmitry P. Romodanovsky2
1 Yaroslavl State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 5 Revolyutsionnaya St., Yaroslavl 150000, Russia
2 Scientific Center for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 8 Petrovsky Blvd, Bldg. 2, Moscow 127051, Russia
Corresponding author: Dmitry P. Romodanovsky (Romodanovsky@expmed.ru)
Academic editor: Oleg Gudyrev ♦ Received 31 May 2020 ♦ Accepted 4 August 2020 ♦ Published 24 September 2020
Citation: Khokhlov AL, Romodanovsky DP (2020) Review of bioequivalence studies of cholecalciferol drugs. Research Results in Pharmacology 6(3): 21-26. https://doi.org/10.3897/rrpharmacology.6.54929
Abstract
Introduction: The general requirements for assessing bioequivalence of endogenous drugs are described in the relevant guidelines, but they do not provide a complete picture of how to adequately develop a design of such a study. The aim of this article is to offer recommendations on the development of a design for bioequivalence studies of endogenous drugs, using cholecalciferol as an example.
Materials and methods: A systematic review of our database on the results of bioequivalence studies of generic drugs revealed one study of cholecalciferol drugs, which was performed using a simple cross-over design. The study involved 24 healthy adult subjects. The data of 24 volunteers were retrospectively analyzed to identify endogenous cholecalciferol concentrations and intraindividual variability (CVintra) for Cmax and AUC0-t. As part of a retrospective analysis, we also assessed gender differences of pharmacokinetics.
Results and discussion: Assessment of the bioequivalence of cholecalciferol drugs was complicated by the presence of endogenous concentrations of cholecalciferol for the tested drug - 1.27 (±0.55) ng/ml and for the reference drug -0.98 (±0.55) ng/ml. The results of the analysis of the intraindividual variability of Cmax and AUC0-72 of the tested and reference drugs showed the following CVintra values - 22.80% and 21.58%, respectively. A comparative analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters did not reveal statistically significant gender differences. The article presents approaches to the planning of future bioequivalence studies of cholecalciferol drugs.
Conclusion: Cholecalciferol is not a highly variable drug; however, it relates to drugs - analogues of endogenous compounds, which requires determining the endogenous concentrations.
Keywords
bioequivalence, endogenous concentrations, cholecalciferol.
Introduction
At present, in Europe, in the USA, as in the Russian Federation, there are special guidelines for the selection of a design, evaluation and interpretation of the results of comparative pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies (CHMP 2010; U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2013; Mironov 2013).
Assessment of bioequivalence of some generic and reference drugs is complicated by the presence of basic endogenous concentrations of these compounds (for example, ions, vitamins, hormones, etc.) in the body; in some cases, endogenous concentrations can be more or less constant, in other cases - significantly variable (for example, due to various endogenous processes, circadian rhythms, etc.); in some situations, endogenous concen-
Copyright Khokhlov AL, Romodanovsky DP. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
trations may remain unchanged when administering the test drug in blood, but the concentration of the compound increases in another compartment of the body, such as urine (Schindel 2000; Sanjeeva 2010). The general principles for conducting and evaluating the results of such studies are described in the relevant guidelines (CHMP 2010; Food and Drug Administration 2013; Mironov 2013), but they do not provide a complete picture of how to adequately develop a design of such a study. In particular, such general recommendations do not take into account the nature of each individual endogenous substance; therefore, it is relevant not only to create general recommendations, but also particular ones, based on the existing scientific experience.
The aim of this article is to offer recommendations on the development of a design for bioequivalence studies of drugs active substances of which are present in the body as endogenous compounds, using cholecalciferol as an example.
Material and methods
Methods of statistical processing for retrospective analysis
The data for 24 subjects were retrospectively analyzed, i.e. the analysis included the datasets for C and AUC t.
J max 0-t
The value AUC0-twas computed by the trapezoidal method. The pharmacokinetic parameters were transformed into logarithms and analyzed using ANOVA. The factors contributing to the observed variation that were included in the ANOVA were the sequence, subjects, period, and drug. The mean-square errors (MSEs) were used to compute coefficient CV „ for C and AUC t.
A intra max 0-t
Methods of statistical processing for the review
The pooled CVmtm of the 5studies was computed. As part of a retrospective analysis, we also calculated the main phar-macokinetic parameters Cmax and AUC0-t separately for male and female subjects and performed a statistical comparison.
Pharmacokinetic parameters, CV and statistical
r intra
tests were calculated using SSPS Statistics v. 25 and Microsoft Office Excel 2016 software.
Material for retrospective analysis
The systematic analysis of the databases of Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products and Yaroslavl State Medical University on the results of clinical trials of cholecalciferol drugs, one bioequivalence study was revealed. The study was performed with a simple crossover design in two periods and two sequences with a single administration of the test and reference drugs in fasting condition. The study involved 24 healthy Russian adult subjects (16 males and 8 females). The dosage of 5000 IU (125 ^g) test and reference drugs was assessed in the study in fasting condition. Blood samples were taken within 72 hours after drug administration, and plasmatic concentrations were determined using a validated high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection (HPLC MS/MS) of analytes. The wash-out period in the study was 14 days; the schedule of sample collection included the blood sampling -24; -10; -2; 0 hours before and 3; 6; 8; 9; 11; 12; 13; 4; 15; 16; 18; 20; 24; 30; 36; 48; 72 hours after drug administration in each period. The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) was 0.5 ng/ml. The test and reference formulations of cholecalciferol were bioequivalent since the 90% of CIs for the geometric mean test/reference ratios were within the predetermined range from 80.00% to 125.00%.
Material for the review
The literature sources and data obtained by searching the Internet (PubMed, Google, ResearchGate) were also analyzed to evaluate the intra-individual variance and endogenous concentrations of cholecalciferol drugs. The search terms were bioequivalence and cholecalciferol.
Results and discussion
The bioequivalence study of cholecalciferol, revealed through the systematic analysis of databases of The Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products and Yaroslavl State Medical University", was performed with a simple cross-over design.
As a result of a retrospective analysis of the cholecal-ciferol concentrations corrected for the endogenous concentration, the pharmacokinetic parameters Cmax, AUC0-t, and t were calculated. Table 1 presents the average
max
pharmacokinetic parameters after correction for endogenous concentration.
Figure 1 presents the endogenous levels of cholecal-ciferol in two groups of subjects: before administration of the test and reference drugs (within 24 hours), and phar-macokinetic profiles after administration of the test and reference drugs (within 72 hours) without correction for the endogenous level.
In the study, prior to taking the drugs, some volunteers showed an endogenous concentration of cholecalciferol above LLOQ (0.5 ng/ml). For the remaining volunteers, the values of endogenous concentrations did not exceed LLOQ and were equated to 0. The average endogenous concentration over 24 hours in the tested drug group (n=3) was 1.27 (±0.55) ng/ml and in the reference drug group (n=5) - 0.98 (±0.55) ng/ml. Within 24 hours, the concentrations of cholecalciferol did not undergo significant fluctuations (Fig. 1). Taking into account the uncorrected mean values obtained in the study after taking cholecalciferol in a dosage of 125 ^g, Cmax for the study drug was 6.96 (±2.79) ng/ml and for the reference drug - 7.29 (±3.28) ng/ml. The endogenous level of cholecalciferol revealed in some volunteers was more than 5% of C .
max
Table 1. Averaged pharmacokinetic parameters of cholecalciferol.
~№ Cmax T, ng/ml, (SD) Cmax R, ng/ml, (SD) AUC^ T, ng*h/ml, (SD) AUC0-t R, ng*h/ml, (SD) tmax T, h, (SD) tmax R, h, (SD) 1 6.80 (2.70) 7.09 (3.19) 198.29 (95.14) 220.22 (119.47) 13.17 (3.66) 12.36 (2.20)~
Note: Cmax - maximum plasma concentration; AUC0-t - area under the plasma concentration-time curve between 0 to time of the last blood sampling; t - time to reach maximum plasma concentration; T - test drug; R - reference drug; SD - standard deviation.
10
-24 -10 -2 0 3 6 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 20 24 30 36 48 72
Time, h
Figure 1. Pharmacokinetic profiles of cholecalciferol. Note: T - test drug; R - reference drug.
According to the literature data, the values of endogenous concentrations of cholecalciferol were about 1 ng/ ml, after taking 70 ^g of cholecalciferol, Cmax was about 4 ng/ml, t - 12-24 hours. The method for determination
° 7 max
of cholecalciferol was HPLC MS/MS, LLOQ 0.5 ng/ml (Barger-Lux et al. 1998; Xie et al. 2011; Marzo et al. 2013).
According to Hamish Wright et al. (2015), endogenous cholecalciferol concentrations were about 1-1.5 ng/ml, after taking 5600 IU of cholecalciferol (140 p,g), Cmax was about 11 ng/ml, t - 12.5-13.5 h. The method for de-
max
termination of cholecalciferol was HPLC MS/MS, LLOQ 0.5 ng/ml (Wright et al. 2015).
According to the open access data, in 5 bioequivalence studies with determination of cholecalciferol concentrations, the following pharmacokinetic parameters were obtained (Table 2) (Denker et al. 2011; Public assessment report 2017; Public assessment report 2018).
Thus, there were basic endogenous concentrations of cholecalciferol at a level of 1-1.5 ng/ml and the comparability of pharmacokinetics after administration of chole-calciferol drugs (Chen et al. 1990a; Chen et al. 1990b; Takeuchi et al. 1995; Porras et al. 1999; Raimundo et al. 2015). When taking a dosage of 70 ^g, the maximum concentrations reach 4-6 ng/ml, when taking 140 ^g - 8-13 ng/ml, tmax - 9-14 hours (Francis et al. 1996; Heaney et al. 2003-1Ilahi et al. 2008; Bouillon et al. 2013; Fort et al. 2016; Imga et al. 2018).
The results of a retrospective analysis of the intrain-dividual variability of Cmax and AUC0-72 of the tested and reference drugs showed the following CVintra values -22.80% and 21.58%, respectively. Thus, in this study, a low value of the coefficient of intraindividual variability of cholecalciferol was obtained for both parameters.
In the literature, the data on CV of the parameter
' intra A
C also indicate its low variability (11-26%), with re-
max
spect to the parameter AUC, the data are contradictory (12-42%) (Table 3).
The pooling data of CVintra of 3 standard design studies (2^2x2) described in the literature and the results of our retrospective study showed the following values: for Cmax - 18.84% (upper limit is 80% of the confidence interval of 19.95%), for AUC - 17.87% (the upper limit is 80% of the confidence interval of 18.92%).
The pooling data of CVintra of 2 studies with replicate design (2x4x4) described in the literature showed the following values: for Cmax - 18.79% (upper limit is 80% of the confidence interval - of 19.52%), for AUC - 28.89% (upper limit is 80 % of the confidence interval of 30.00%).
Thus, it can be assumed that cholecalciferol most likely does not have high intraindividual variability (Matsuo-ka et al. 1992; Van Der Klis et al. 1996; Trang et al. 1998; Lips et al. 1999; Vieth 1999; Jafri et al. 2011). However, when calculating the sample size, it is worth focusing on the variability values of about 20-30%.
Table 2. Averaged pharmacokinetic parameters of cholecalciferol according to literature.
№ Dose, Cmax T, / Cmax R, ng / AUC01 T, ng *h/ AUC0-t R, ng *h/ tmax T, h tmax R, h tl/2 T h tl/2 R h
Hg ml, (SD) ml, (SD) ml, (SD) nil, (SD) (SD) (SD)
1 140 12.77 (3.99)* 13.13 (3.41)* 455.92 (142.97)* 475.93 (133.64)* 12.00 12.00 21.03 (5.71) 21.34 (5.71)
2 70* 4.19 (1.18) 4.29 (1.29) 116.40 (44.86) 117.79 (49.32) 10.00 10.00 17.58 (5.51) 16.55 (4.29)
4.17 (0.93) 4.29 (1.14) 124.75 (35.98) 127.28 (40.34) 12.00 12.00 18.31 (4.78) 17.53 (4.31)
3 140 8.50 (1.80) 8.20 (1.60) 303.00 (71.00) 295.00 (58.00) 14.00 14.00 - -
4 70 5.90 (3.30)* 6.60 (3.10)* 296.40 (375.50)* 337.90 (344.20)* 12.00 9.00 - -
5 140 12.20 (5.60)* 13.00 (5.90)* 490.20 (259.60)* 518.70 (269.80)* 10.00 9.00 - -
Note: references to studies ##1, 2 - Public assessment report (2018); references to study #3 - Public assessment report (2017); references for studies ##4, 5 - Denker AE et al. (2011); Cmax - maximum plasma concentration; AUC0-t - area under the plasma concentration-time curve between 0 to t of the last blood sampling; t - time to reach maximum plasma concentration; t - period of half-life; T - test drug; R - reference drug; SD - standard deviation; | - values without correction for the endogenous level (endogenous concentration was not determined); J - study with a replicate design (pharmacokinetic parameters are given for each period); - no data available.
Table 3. Results of analysis of studies of bioequivalence of cholecalciferol drugs in fasting condition.
№ Dose, Hg Design N CV., C % intra max,% CV. _ AUC0,% intra 0-t,%
1 140 2x2x4 55 11* 14*
2 70 2x2x4 41 26* 42*
3 140 2x2x2 26 14 12
4 70 2x2x2 28 13 17
5 140 2x2x2 60 21 19
Note: references to studies ##1, 2 - Public assessment report (2018); references to study #3 - Public assessment report (2017); references to studies ##4, 5 - Denker AE et al. (2011); Cmax - maximum plasma concentration; AUC0-t - area under the plasma concentration-time curve between 0 to t of the last blood sampling; CV - coefficient of intrain-dividual variability; T - test drug; R - reference drug, | - values of in-traindividual variability of the reference drug; 2x2x2 - simple cross-over design (2 treatments, 2 sequences, 2 periods); 2x2x4 - replicate design (2 treatments, 2 sequences, 4 periods).
As part of a retrospective analysis of cholecalciferol bioequivalence studies, C and AUC were also calcu-
A ' max
lated for the populations of male and female subjects. A comparative analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters did not reveal statistically significant differences.
As a result the systematic review, the following approaches to the planning of future bioequivalence studies of cholecalciferol drugs were developed:
1. According to a retrospective analysis of bioequiv-alence studies of cholecalciferol, the weighted average intraindividual variability of C was at the
max
level of 20% and AUC - at the level of 20-30%. Accordingly, the number of subjects for bioequiv-alence studies with a standard design and a point estimate of 0.95, type I error of 5%, type II error of 20%, should be approximately 20-40. It is recommended that subjects of both sexes be included in the studies in equal proportions to assess possible gender differences in the pharmacokinetics of the test and reference drugs.
2. The half-life of cholecalciferol is long and ranges from 18 hours to several days, according to various studies (Denker et al. 2011; Public assessment report 2017; Public assessment report 2018). Thus, it can be assumed that it is acceptable to take blood samples for the determination of cholecalciferol
within 72 hours. Based on the above data, the washout period should be at least 14 days.
3. The blood sampling schedule for the pharmacokinetic analysis of cholecalciferol must include pre-dose samples, taking into account the presence of an endogenous concentration. According to the retrospective analysis and literature data, endogenous concentrations were 1-1.5 ng/ml and did not undergo significant daily fluctuations. Therefore, it is advisable to determine the average endogenous concentration before each dosing period. It is recommended to determine the endogenous level 24, 16, 8 hours and immediately before administration of the test and reference drugs (point "0"). The average endogenous concentration should be subtracted from the concentrations for each time point after taking the studied drugs. If, after correction, a negative plasma concentration occurs, it should be set at 0 before calculating the adjusted AUC0-72.
To describe the curve "concentration-time" in the ascending part of the curve and the time to reach Cmax 9-14 hours after taking the studied drugs, the following time points can be recommended: 1; 2; 4; 6; 8; 9; 10; 10.5; 11; 11.5; 12; 12.5; 13; 13.5; 14 hours; to describe the descending part of the curve -15; 16; 20; 24; 36; 48; and 72 hours. Thus, the following blood sampling schedule can be recommended:
• to determine an endogenous concentration: - 24, -16, -8; and 0 hours;
• to determine the concentration of cholecalciferol after administration of the test drugs - 1; 2; 4; 6; 8; 9; 10; 10.5; 11; 11.5; 12; 12.5; 13; 13.5; 14; 15; 16; 18; 20; 24; 36; 48; and 72 hours.
4. To determine cholecalciferol, it is recommended to use the most sensitive determination method, for example, analytical HPLC-based methods with mass spectrometric detection or tandem mass spectrometric detection. According to the retrospective study, after taking 70-140 ^g of cholecalciferol, maximum concentrations were observed at a level of 4-13 ng/ml. Therefore, the analytical method should allow achieving an adequate LLOQ, for example, at least 0.2 ng/ml
(5% of 4 ng/ml) when studying a dosage of 70 ^g, or 0.65 ng/ml when studying a dosage of 140 ^g.
5. In a study with a standard design, it is necessary that 90% of the confidence intervals for the ratios of the geometric means of the parameters Cmax and AUC0-72 of the test and reference drug were in the range of 80.00-125.00%.
Conclusion
1. Cholecalciferol is not a highly variable drug; however, it relates to drugs - analogues of endogenous compounds, which requires to determine endogenous concentrations.
2. The analysis of the pharmacokinetics of the subpopulations of men and women did not reveal any statistically significant differences.
3. When planning and evaluating the results of bio-equivalence studies, it is possible to be guided by the above approaches.
Acknowledgments
The study reported in this publication was carried out as part of a publicly funded research project No. 056-0000320-00 and was supported by The Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products (R&D public accounting No. AAAA-A18-118021590049-0).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interests to be disclosed in this article.
References
■ Barger-Lux MJ, Heaney RP, Dowell S, Chen TC, Holick MF (1998) Vitamin D and its major metabolites: serum levels after graded oral dosing in healthy men. Osteoporosis International 8(3): 222-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980050058 [PubMed]
■ Bouillon R, Van Schoor NM, Gielen E, Boonen S, Mathieu C, Vanderschueren D, Lips P (2013) Optimal vitamin D status: a critical analysis on the basis of evidence-based medicine. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 98(8): E1283-E1304. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2013-1195 [PubMed]
■ Chen TC, Turner AK, Holick MF (1990a) A method for the determination of the circulating concentration of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D. The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 1(6): 320-327. https://doi. org/10.1016/0955-2863(90)90068-V [PubMed]
■ Chen TC, Turner AK, Holick MF (1990b) A method for the determination of the circulating concentration of vitamin D. The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 1(5): 272-276. https://doi. org/10.1016/0955-2863(90)90078-Y [PubMed]
■ Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP) (2010) Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. London: European Medicines Agency, 27 pp.
■ Denker AE, Lazarus N, Porras A, Ramakrishnan R, Constanzer M, Scott BR, Wagner JA (2011) Bioavailability of alendronate and vitamin D(3) in an alendronate/vitamin D(3) combination tablet. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 51(10): 1439-1448. https://doi. org/10.1177/0091270010382010 [PubMed]
■ Fort P, Salas AA, Nicola T, Craig CM, Carlo WA, Ambalavanan N (2016) A comparison of 3 vitamin D dosing regimens in extremely preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Pediatrics 174: 132-138.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjpeds.2016.03.028 [PubMed]
■ Francis RM, Boyle IT, Moniz C, Sutcliffe AM, Davis BS, Beastall GH, Cowan RA, Downes N (1996) A comparison of the effects of alfacalcidol treatment and vitamin D2 supplementation on calcium absorption in elderly women with vertebral fractures. Osteoporosis International: 6(4): 284-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01623386 [PubMed]
■ Heaney RP, Davies KM, Chen TC, Holick MF, Barger-Lux MJ (2003) Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing with cholecalciferol. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 77(1): 204-210. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/77.1.204 [PubMed]
■ Ilahi M, Armas LA, Heaney RP (2008) Pharmacokinetics of a single, large dose of cholecalciferol. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 87(3): 688-691. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/87.3.688 [PubMed]
■ Imga NN, Berker D, Can B, Guler S (2018) The effects of three regimens of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) supplementation on vitamin D deficiency in non-obese and obese females. Archives of Medical Sciences. Atherosclerotic Diseases 3: e60-e67. https://doi.org/10.5114/ amsad.2018.74784 [PubMed]
■ Jafri L, Khan AH, Siddiqui AA, Mushtaq S, Iqbal R, Ghani F, Sid-diqui I (2011) Comparison of high performance liquid chromatog-raphy, radio immunoassay and electrochemiluminescence immu-noassay for quantification of serum 25 hydroxy vitamin D. Clinical Biochemistry 44(10-11): 864-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbio-chem.2011.04.020 [PubMed]
■ Lips P, Chapuy MC, Dawson-Hughes B, Pols HA, Holick MF (1999) An international comparison of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D measurements. Osteoporosis International 9(5): 394-397. https://doi. org/10.1007/s001980050162 [PubMed]
■ Marzo A, Barassi A, Porro E (2013) Open questions on bioequiva-lence: the case of cholecalciferol. Italian Journal of Medicine 7(3): 156-159. https://doi.org/10.4081/itjm.2013.156 [PubMed]
■ Matsuoka LY, Wortsman J, Haddad JG, Hollis BW (1992) Elevation of blood vitamin D2 levels does not impede the release of vitamin D3 from the skin. Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental 41(11): 12571260. https://doi.org/10.1016/0026-0495(92)90018-6 [PubMed]
■ Mironov AN (2013) Manual on Expertise of Medicines. V I. Grifi K, Moscow, 328 pp. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-199936050-00002 [in Russian]
■ Porras AG, Holland SD, Gertz BJ (1999) Pharmacokinetics of alendronate. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 36(5): 315-328. [PubMed]
■ Public assessment report (2017) Alendronic acid/cholecalciferol, EU-procedure number: NL/H/2415/001-002/DC. USA: Heads of medicines agencies, 3 pp.
■ Public assessment report (2018) Alendronic acid (as alendronate sodium trihydrate) and cholecalciferol (vitamin D3), EU-procedure number: DK/H/2582/001-002/DC. USA: Heads of medicines agencies, 9 pp.
■ Raimundo FV, Lang MA, Scopel L, Marcondes NA, Araujo MG, Faulhaber GA, Furlanetto TW (2015) Effect of fat on serum 25-hy-droxyvitamin D levels after a single oral dose of vitamin D in young healthy adults: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study. European Journal of Nutrition 54(3): 391-396. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00394-014-0718-8 [PubMed]
■ Sanjeeva D (2010) Assessing the bioequivalence of analogues of endogenous substances ("endogenous drugs"): considerations to optimize study design. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 69: 238-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03585.x [PubMed] [PMC]
■ Schindel F (2000) Consideration of endogenous backgrounds in pharmacokinetic analyses: a simulation study. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 56(9-10): 685-688. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s002280000230 [PubMed]
■ Takeuchi A, Okano T, Ishida Y, Kobayashi T (1995) Effects of dietary vitamin D intake on plasma levels of parathyroid hormone and vitamin D metabolites in healthy Japanese. Mineral and Electrolyte Metabolism 21(1-3): 217-222. [PubMed]
■ Trang HM, Cole DE, Rubin LA, Pierratos A, Siu S, Vieth R (1998) Evidence that vitamin D3 increases serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D more efficiently than does vitamin D2. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 68(4): 854-858. https://doi.org/10.1093/ ajcn/68.4.854 [PubMed]
■ U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2013) Bioequivalence Studies with Pharmacokinetic Endpoints for Drugs Submitted Under an ANDA. USA: Silver Spring, 20 pp.
■ Van Der Klis FR, Jonxis JH, Van Doormaal JJ, Sikkens P, Saleh AE, Muskiet FA (1996) Changes in vitamin-D metabolites and parathyroid hormone in plasma following cholecalciferol administration to pre- and postmenopausal women in the Netherlands in early spring and to postmenopausal women in Curaçao. The British Journal of Nutrition 75(4): 637-646. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19960166 [PubMed]
■ Vieth R (1999) Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and safety. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 69(5): 842-856. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/69.5.842 [PubMed]
■ Wright DH, Mols R, Brown KR, Yeh GC, Woolf E, Hickey L, Zajic S (2015) Bioequivalence of alendronate and vitamin D3 in a combination tablet versus corresponding-dose individual tablets in healthy Taiwanese volunteers, determined using a uovel plasma alendronate assay. Current Therapeutic Research, Clinical and Experimental 77: 116-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.curtheres.2015.10.001 [PubMed] [PMC]
■ Xie W, Chavez-Eng CM, Fang W, Constanzer ML, Matuszews-ki BK, Mullett WM, Pawliszyn J (2011) Quantitative liquid chro-matographic and tandem mass spectrometric determination of vitamin D3 in human serum with derivatization: A comparison of in-tube LLE, 96-well plate LLE and in-tip SPME. Journal of Chro-matography. B. Analytical Technologies in the Biomedical and Life Sciences 879(17-18): 1457-1466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jchromb.2011.03.018 [PubMed]
Authors contribution
■ Alexandr L. Khokhlov, Doctor Habil. of Medical Sciences, Full Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head of Department of Clinical Pharmacology, e-mail: al460935@yandex.ru, ORCID ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0032-0341. The author provided the idea of research, analyzed the results and made the conclusions.
■ Dmitry P. Romodanovsky, Candidate of Medical Sciences, Chief Expert of Division №1 on Medicinal Products' Efficacy and Safety of The Centre for Evaluation and Control of Medicinal Products, e-mail: Romodanovsky@ expmed.ru, ORCID ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2980-4518. The author defined the idea of research, analyzed the material, the results and made the conclusions.
