ArticleCurrent therapeutic research, clinical and experimental2004
Bioequivalence study of two formulations of enalapril, at a single oral dose of 20 mg (tablets): A randomized, two-way, open-label, crossover study in healthy volunteers.
Article in Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can Generic Medications Be a Safe and Effective Alternative to Brand-Name Drugs for Cardiovascular Disease Treatment? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Generic versus brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular diseases.European journal of epidemiology · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Bioequivalence of Two Formulations of a Single Oral Dose of 500-mg Azithromycin Granules: A Randomized, Open-Label, Two-Period Crossover Study in Healthy Han Chinese Volunteers.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnalapril maleate is the monoethyl ester prodrug of enalapril- at, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor indicated in the management of essential and renovascular hypertension, and in the treatment of congestive heart failure and in asymptomatic patients with left ventricular dysfunction and an ejection fraction of ≥35%. Enalapril has little pharmacologic activity until hydrolyzed in vivo to enalaprilat.
objectiveThe aim of the present study was to compare the bioavailability and tolerability of 2 commercial brands (test and reference formulations) of enalapril tablets (20 mg), described as the rate and extent of absorption of the active moiety, to assess their bioequivalence.
methodsThis single-dose, randomized, 2-way, open-label, crossover study in healthy volunteers aged 18 to 40 years was conducted at the Clinical Pharmacology Study Unit, Hospital Clínico San Carlos (Madrid, Spain). Subjects were randomized to receive (under fasting conditions) either the test or reference formulation of enalapril (20-mg tablet) at study period 1 and the opposite formulation at study period 2. Study periods were separated by a washout period of at least 7 days. During each study period, 15 plasma extractions were made to determine enalapril and enalaprilat plasma concentrations and to calculate the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties (maximal plasma drug concentration [Cmax], time to Cmax [Tmax], area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC] to the last measurable concentration [AUCt], AUC from time 0 to infinity [AUC0-∞], mean residence time, and elimination half-life [tl2]) of both. Physical examination, subject interview, laboratory analyses, electrocardiogram, and blood pressure (BP) were used to assess tolerability.
resultsTwenty-four subjects were included in the study (12 men, 12 women; mean [SD] age, 22.8 [2.2] years [range, 19-30 years]). Of these, 1 subject (4.2%) withdrew from the study for personal reasons; thus, PK and statistical analyses included results from 23 subjects. No statistically significant sequence or period effect was found. Tmax was not statistically different between the 2 formulations, and the 90% CI calculated for Tmax for the difference of the medians was within the predefined range. The 90% CIs of the logarithmically transformed concentration-derived parameters (Cmax AUCt, and AUC0-∞) also were within the predefined range; thus, the 2 formulations are considered bioequivalent. For both formulations, systolic and diastolic BPs showed significant reductions compared with baseline values (P < 0.05). Seven adverse effects were recorded, all of them transient and none of severe intensity.
conclusionsIn this study of 2 commercial brands (test and reference formulations) of enalapril in healthy subjects, designed and conducted under Good Clinical Practice guidelines, a similar rate and extent of absorption for both formulations were found to be bioequivalent. Both formulations produced a significant decrease in BP values and were generally well tolerated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.