# Palbociclib Capsule: A Bioequivalence Study in Healthy Subjects Under Fed Conditions to Compare Two Formulations

## TL;DR

This study compared two palbociclib capsule formulations in healthy subjects under fed conditions to determine if they are bioequivalent for regulatory approval in Latin America.

## Contribution

The study provides evidence of bioequivalence and tolerability of a generic palbociclib formulation compared to the reference product under fed conditions.

## Key findings

- The geometric mean ratio for Cmax was 107.07% (90% CI: 101.98–112.42).
- The geometric mean ratio for AUC0–72 was 109.77% (90% CI: 106.51–113.13).
- Both formulations were well-tolerated in healthy subjects.

## Abstract

Background: Globally, breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed neoplasm among women, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases reported in 2022. Treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer includes aromatase inhibitors and CDK4/6 inhibitors such as palbociclib. Objective: This study evaluated the bioequivalence and tolerability of two palbociclib capsule formulations to support the regulatory approval of a branded generic product in Latin America countries. Methods: Healthy participants were enrolled in an open-label, randomized, single-dose study using a two-treatment, two-sequence, two-period crossover design. Study participants received a single-dose test product, a palbociclib 125 mg capsule (Laboratório LKM S.A., Argentina), and a reference product, an Ibrance® 125 mg capsule (Pfizer Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH), under fed conditions separated by a 14-day washout period. Blood samples were obtained at scheduled intervals over a 72 h period following administration, and the palbociclib plasma concentrations were determined using a validated LC-MS/MS method. Pharmacokinetic parameters were computed via non-compartmental analysis methods. A total of 52 healthy subjects were enrolled, and 50 subjects completed the study. Results: The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for Cmax and AUC0–72 were 107.07% (101.98–112.42) and 109.77% (106.51–113.13), respectively. Conclusions: Both formulations were well-tolerated in healthy subjects. In accordance with regulatory standards, bioequivalence between the test formulation and the reference product was successfully demonstrated.