PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 31, 2026Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development0 citations

Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Two Extended‐Release Tablet Formulations of Upadacitinib: Bioequivalence Assessment

View Full Paper
BSBiao SunLZLi ZhaoFGFangliang Gan

Key Points

  • This study aims to compare the pharmacokinetics and safety of two extended-release formulations of upadacitinib.
  • Evaluated pharmacokinetics of two UPA formulations in healthy Chinese subjects under fasting and postprandial conditions.
  • Measured plasma concentrations using ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.
  • Applied non-compartmental analysis with Phoenix WinNonlin software for bioequivalence assessment.
  • Confidence intervals for C max, AUC 0–t, and AUC 0–∞ ratios were between 0.80–1.25, confirming bioequivalence.
  • No serious adverse events occurred; mild drug-related adverse events were noted under both conditions.

Abstract

Abstract The aim of this study is to evaluate the pharmacokinetic characteristics, bioequivalence, and safety of two brands of upadacitinib (UPA) extended‐release tablets (15 mg) in healthy Chinese subjects under fasting and postprandial conditions. The plasma concentration of UPA was determined by ultra‐high‐performance liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using a non‐compartmental model (NCA module) with Phoenix WinNonlin 8.2 (Certara, USA) software, followed by bioequivalence evaluation. The results demonstrate that the 90% confidence intervals for the geometric least‐squares mean ratios of C max , AUC 0–t , and AUC 0–∞ between the test and reference formulations fall within the range of 0.80−1.25, indicating that both formulations are bioequivalent in terms of absorption rate and extent under fasting and postprandial conditions. No serious adverse events occurred, and observed drug‐related adverse events were mild under both conditions, indicating comparable safety of the two formulations.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sun et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1bd0845783ba022b6fc4c6https://doi.org/10.1002/cpdd.70073
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Upadacitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: 16-week results from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial2019 · 364 citations
  2. 2Assessment of effect of CYP3A inhibition, CYP induction, OATP1B inhibition, and high‐fat meal on pharmacokinetics of the JAK1 inhibitor upadacitinib2017 · 69 citations
  3. 3Upadacitinib for psoriatic arthritis refractory to biologics: SELECT-PsA 22020 · 239 citations
  4. 4Pharmacokinetics, Safety, Tolerability, and Exploratory Efficacy of Upadacitinib in Children with Severe Atopic Dermatitis2024 · 11 citations
  5. 5Exposure‐Response Analyses for Upadacitinib Efficacy in Subjects With Atopic Dermatitis—Analyses of Phase 2b Study to Support Selection of Phase 3 Doses2020 · 12 citations