Pharmacokinetic comparison of sustained- and immediate-release oral formulations of cilostazol in healthy Korean subjects: a randomized, open-label, 3-part, sequential, 2-period, crossover, single-dose, food-effect, and multiple-dose study

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A sustained-release (SR) formulation of cilostazol was recently developed in Korea and was expected to yield a lower C(max) and a similar AUC to the immediate-release (IR) formulation.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of a newly developed SR formulation and an IR formulation of cilostazol after single- and multiple-dose administration and to evaluate the influence of food in healthy Korean subjects. This study was developed as part of a product development project at the request of the Korean regulatory agency.

METHODS: This was a randomized, 3-part, sequential, open-label, 2-period crossover study. Each part consisted of different subjects between the ages of 19 and 55 years. In part 1, each subject received a single dose of SR (200 mg × 1 tablet, once daily) and IR (100 mg × 2 tablets, BID) formulations of cilostazol orally 7 days apart in a fasted state. In part 2, each subject received a single dose of the SR (200 mg × 1 tablet, once daily) formulation of cilostazol 7 days apart in a fasted and a fed state. In part 3, each subject received multiple doses of the 2 formulations for 8 consecutive days 21 days apart. Blood samples were taken for 72 hours after the dose. Cilostazol pharmacokinetics were determined for both the parent drug and its metabolites (OPC-13015 and OPC-13213). Adverse events were evaluated through interviews and physical examinations.

RESULTS: Among the 92 enrolled subjects (66 men, 26 women; part 1, n = 26; part 2, n = 26; part 3, n = 40), 87 completed the study. In part 1, all the primary pharmacokinetic parameters satisfied the criterion for assumed bioequivalence both in cilostazol and its metabolites, yielding 90% CI ratios of 0.9624 to 1.2323, 0.8873 to 1.1208, and 0.8919 to 1.1283 for C(max) and 0.8370 to 1.0134, 0.8204 to 0.9807, and 0.8134 to 0.9699 for AUC(0-last) of cilostazol, OPC-13015, and OPC-13213, respectively. In part 2, food intake increased C(max) and AUC significantly (P < 0.0001), yielding geometric mean ratios of 3.2879, 2.9894, and 3.0592 for C(max) and 1.7001, 1.7689, and 1.6976 for AUC(0-last) of cilostazol, OPC-13015, and OPC-13213. In part 3, only the C(ssmax) of clilostazol in the reference formulation did not satisfy the criterion for assumed bioequivalence, yielding 90% CI ratios of 1.2693 to 1.4238 and 1.2038 to 1.3441, respectively. When each dose was normalized, the C(max) for the SR formulation was significantly lower (P < 0.005 for cilostazol). Headache was the most frequently noted adverse effect (part 1, a total of 14 subjects with the IR formulation and 14 with the SR formulation; part 2, a total of 10 without food and 23 with a high-fat meal; part 3, a total of 10 with the IR formulation and 24 with the SR formulation), followed by nausea (part 1, none; part 2, only 1 without food and 3 with a high-fat meal; part 3, a total of 3 with the IR formulation and 3 with the SR formulation), and then dizziness (parts 1 and 2, none; part 3, a total of 4 with the IR formulation and 5 with the SR formulation). All other AEs, including fever, cough, vomiting, palpitation, diarrhea, and epigastric pain, occurred in <3 subjects.

CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that in this select group of healthy Korean volunteers, the SR formulation of cilostazol was not significantly different in AUC compared with that of the IR formulation, although it did display a significantly lower C(max) per dose in both the single- and multiple-dose groups. Food significantly increased the bioavailability of the SR formulation. The cilostazol SR and IR formulations were well tolerated in all parts of the study, with no serious adverse events reported. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01455558.