Back to Journals » Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management » Volume 9

Comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers

Authors Del Tacca M, Pasqualetti G, Gori G, Pepe P, Di Paolo A, Lastella M, De Negri F, Blandizzi C

Received 11 October 2012

Accepted for publication 4 January 2013

Published 24 July 2013 Volume 2013:9 Pages 303—311


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 5

Mario Del Tacca,1,2 Giuseppe Pasqualetti,3 Giovanni Gori,1 Pasquale Pepe,1 Antonello Di Paolo,2 Marianna Lastella,2 Ferdinando De Negri,1 Corrado Blandizzi2

1Clinical Pharmacology Centre for Drug Experimentation, Pisa University Hospital, 2Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 3Geriatrics Unit, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

Purpose: The primary aim of the present study was to assess the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence between a generic formulation of meloxicam 15 mg tablets (Meloxicam Hexal) and its respective brand product (Mobic), in order to verify whether the generic product conforms to the regulatory standards of bioequivalence in the postmarketing setting. As a secondary exploratory aim, the pharmacodynamic effects of the two formulations were also evaluated by means of rating scales following hyperalgesia induced by cutaneous freeze injury.
Subjects and methods: A single 15 mg dose of generic or branded meloxicam tablets was administered to 24 healthy male volunteers in a crossover fashion. Plasma samples, collected for 24 hours after dosing, were assayed for meloxicam concentration by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography method.
Results: The analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters did not show any significant difference between the two meloxicam formulations: the 90% confidence intervals fell within the acceptance range of 80%–125% (0.84–1.16 for area under the curve [0–24], and 0.89–1.23 for peak concentration). No difference in the pharmacodynamic end point was observed between the two groups.
Conclusion: The pharmacokinetic profiles of the two meloxicam formulations confirm the regulatory criteria for bioequivalence; pharmacodynamic data indicate a similar antihyperalgesic effect. The two formulations can be used interchangeably in the clinical setting.

Keywords: meloxicam, pharmacokinetics, healthy volunteers, generic drug, bioequivalence, postmarketing

A Letter to the Editor has been received and published for this article.

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]


Readers of this article also read:

Emerging and future therapies for hemophilia

Carr ME, Tortella BJ

Journal of Blood Medicine 2015, 6:245-255

Published Date: 3 September 2015

Green synthesis of water-soluble nontoxic polymeric nanocomposites containing silver nanoparticles

Prozorova GF, Pozdnyakov AS, Kuznetsova NP, Korzhova SA, Emel’yanov AI, Ermakova TG, Fadeeva TV, Sosedova LM

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2014, 9:1883-1889

Published Date: 16 April 2014

Methacrylic-based nanogels for the pH-sensitive delivery of 5-Fluorouracil in the colon

Ashwanikumar N, Kumar NA, Nair SA, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5769-5779

Published Date: 15 November 2012

Cross-linked acrylic hydrogel for the controlled delivery of hydrophobic drugs in cancer therapy

Deepa G, Thulasidasan AK, Anto RJ, Pillai JJ, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4077-4088

Published Date: 27 July 2012

Crystallization after intravitreal ganciclovir injection

Pitipol Choopong, Nattaporn Tesavibul, Nattawut Rodanant

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:709-711

Published Date: 14 July 2010