Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Bioequivalence of generic and compounded itraconazole in healthy dogs
By Mawby, D I et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2014·Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Bioequivalence of orally administered generic, compounded, and innovator-formulated itraconazole in healthy dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of nine healthy Beagle dogs was given either a brand-name itraconazole, a generic version, or a compounded version to see how well each was absorbed. The study found that the generic itraconazole was similar enough to the brand-name version to be effective, but the compounded version did not provide enough of the medication in the dogs' systems to work properly. As a result, veterinarians should consider using the generic or brand-name itraconazole for treating fungal infections in dogs, but avoid the compounded version due to its ineffectiveness.
People also search for: dog fungal infection treatment · itraconazole for dogs · compounded medication for dogs
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Itraconazole is commonly used to treat systemic fungal infections in dogs, but problems exist with absorption and cost. OBJECTIVE: To determine oral bioequivalence of generic and compounded itraconazole compared to original innovator (brand name) itraconazole in healthy dogs. ANIMALS: Nine healthy, adult research Beagle dogs. METHODS: A randomized, 3-way, 3-period, crossover design with an 8-day washout period. After a 12-hour fast, each dog received 100 mg (average: 10.5 mg/kg) of either innovator itraconazole, an approved human generic capsule, or compounded itraconazole (compounded using a commercially available compounding vehicle) with a small meal. Plasma was collected at predetermined intervals for high pressure liquid chromatography analysis. Concentration data were analyzed using noncompartmental pharmacokinetics to determine area under the curve (AUC), peak concentration (C(MAX)), and terminal half-life. Bioequivalence tests compared generic and compounded itraconazole to the reference formulation. RESULTS: Average ratios of compounded and generic formulations to the reference formulation of itraconazole for AUC were 5.52% and 104.2%, respectively, and for C(MAX) were 4.14% and 86.34%, respectively. A test of bioequivalence using 2 one-sided tests and 90% confidence intervals did not meet bioequivalence criteria for either formulation. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Neither generic nor compounded itraconazole is bioequivalent to the reference formulation in dogs. However, pharmacokinetic data for generic formulation were similar enough that therapeutic concentrations could be achieved. Compounded itraconazole produced such low plasma concentrations, it is unlikely to be effective; therefore, compounded itraconazole should not be used in dogs.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24428315/