The purpose was to assess the impact of the use of a chiral bioanalytical method on the conclusions of a bioequivalence study that compared two ibuprofen suspensions with different rates of absorption. A comparison of the conclusion of bioequivalence between a chiral method and an achiral approach was made. Plasma concentrations of R-ibuprofen and S-ibuprofen were determined using a chiral bioanalytical method; bioequivalence was tested for R-ibuprofen and for S-ibuprofen separately and for the sum of both enantiomers as an approach for an achiral bioanalytical method. The 90% confidence interval (90% CI) that would have been obtained with an achiral bioanalytical method (90% CI: Cmax: 117.69-134.46; AUC0 (t) : 104.75-114.45) would have precluded the conclusion of bioequivalence. This conclusion cannot be generalized to the active enantiomer (90% CI: Cmax : 103.36-118.38; AUC0 (t) : 96.52-103.12), for which bioequivalence can be concluded, and/or the distomer (90% CI: Cmax : 132.97-151.33; AUC0 (t) : 115.91-135.77) for which a larger difference was observed. Chiral bioanalytical methods should be required when 1) the enantiomers exhibit different pharmacodynamics and 2) the exposure (AUC or Cmax ) ratio of enantiomers is modified by a difference in the rate of absorption. Furthermore, the bioequivalence conclusion should be based on all enantiomers, since the distomer(s) might not be completely inert, in contrast to what is required in the current regulatory guidelines. In those cases where it is unknown if the ratio between enantiomers is modified by changing the rate of absorption, chiral bioanalytical methods should be employed unless enantiomers exhibit the same pharmacodynamics. Chirality 28:429-433, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: bioequivalence; enantiomer ratio; enantiomers; ibuprofen; regulatory requirements.
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.