4.1 Article

Pharmacokinetics of single and multiple oral doses of arbidol in healthy Chinese volunteers

出版社

DUSTRI-VERLAG DR KARL FEISTLE
DOI: 10.5414/CP201843

关键词

arbidol; pharmacokinetics; healthy subjects; Chinese

资金

  1. Chinese ministry of national science and technology major project [2012ZX09303015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Arbidol is licensed in Russia and China for prophylaxis and treatment of influenza A and B. This study was to assess the pharmacokinetics of single and multiple doses of arbidol in healthy Chinese volunteers. Methods: This was a single-center, open-label, two-phase study conducted in 12 subjects. In single-dose phase, subjects were randomized to receive single doses of 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8 g of arbidol in a crossover design with a 7-day washout period between administrations. In the multiple-dose phase, subjects received 0.2 g 3 times a day for 7 days. Serial blood samples were collected at predefined time points. Plasma concentrations were determined with a validated HPLC method. Safety assessments were conducted throughout the study. Results: After administration of single doses of 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8 g, geometric mean estimates for arbidol C-max were 0.70, 1.24, and 2.16 mg/l and the mean of AUC(last) were 3.27, 5.81 and 12.72 mg x h/l, respectively. The AUC(last) and C-max showed dose proportionality. After administration of multiple doses, the mean of Cmax, of arbidol was 0.41 mg/l and the mean accumulation ratio is similar to 1.12. Compared with single-dose phase, arbidol exhibited lower C-max and prolonged plasma concentration profiles. Conclusions: In healthy Chinese subjects, single dosing of arbidol resulted in linear plasma pharmacokinetics. Arbidol exhibited little accumulation with repeated administration. Compared with single doses, multiple oral doses showed somewhat different pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution patterns. Sex did not appear to affect the pharmacokinetic properties of arbidol.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据