PubMedDate not supplied
OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetics and relative bioavailabilities of key estrogen components of Premarin (Wyeth-Ayerst, Canada) with those of a generic conjugated estrogen preparation, C.E.S. (synthetic mixture of estrogens; ICN, Montreal, Canada) in healthy postmenopausal women. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, single-dose, two-treatment, three-period crossover study in 41 postmenopausal women. After an oral dose (2 x 0.625 mg) of Premarin or C.E.S., plasma concentrations of unconjugated and total estrone (E(1)), equilin (Eq), 17beta-estradiol (17beta-E(2)), 17beta-dihydroequilin (17beta-Eq), Delta(8)-esterone (Delta(8)-E(1)) and Delta(8),17beta-estradiol (Delta(8),17beta-E(2)) were measured over 72 hours using gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy. RESULTS: After administration of C.E.S., E(1), Eq, and 17beta-Eq appeared in blood at a significantly faster rate (lower t(max)) than after Premarin. The rapid appearance of estrogens after C.E.S. was associated with significantly higher (14-61%) C(max) values. In contrast to the high C(max) values, the area under the curve (AUC)(infinity) of unconjugated and total Eq, and 17beta-Eq were significantly lower after C.E.S., whereas those of E(1) were significantly higher. Although, the t(max) values for 17beta-E(2) were lower and the C(max) values higher after C.E.S., only the C(max) of unconjugated 17beta-E(2) was significantly different after Premarin. Unconjugated and total Delta(8)-E(1) and its main metabolite, Delta(8),17beta-E(2), were detectable in plasma only after administration of Premarin. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) (C. E.S./Premarin) of bioavailability parameters indicated that all C(max) and t(max) values for the unconjugated and total E(1), Eq, 17beta-E(2), and 17beta-Eq fell outside the regulatory requirement that the 90% confidence intervals of GMRs of two products be within 80% and 125%. Similarly, with the exception of total E(1) and total Eq, none of the AUC(t) or AUC(alpha) of the remaining estrogens meets the required regulatory standards of bioequivalence. CONCLUSIONS: C.E.S. is not bioequivalent to Premarin. Because C.E.S. also is not pharmaceutically equivalent to Premarin, it cannot be assumed to be therapeutically equivalent. Until long-term clinical trials with C.E.S. demonstrate its efficacy, extrapolation of the long-term benefits described for Premarin to C.E.S. would be risky and questionable.