Dapoxetine is the first oral medication specifically developed for the on‐demand treatment of premature ejaculation. The pharmacokinetics and safety of 30 mg (n = 40) and 60 mg (n = 38) dapoxetine in healthy Chinese under fasted and fed states were assessed in 2 studies. Both studies are random, single‐center, 2‐period, open‐label, 2‐way crossover designs. Plasma concentration of dapoxetine was determined by high‐performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry, and the pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using noncompartmental analysis. Dapoxetine was quickly absorbed and reached maximum concentration 1 to 3 hours after oral administration. Elimination was biphasic, and the plasma concentration decreased to 3% to 7% of maximum concentration by 24 hours while half‐life was 15 to 18 hours. Meantime, high‐fat meals slightly increased its exposure. Both doses of dapoxetine were well tolerated. The adverse events in the high‐dose group under fasted and fed states were 37.9% and 19.0%, respectively.

The study was conducted to compare the pharmacokinetics and safety profiles of 2 brands of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) fumarate tablets. This research was a 2-preparation, 2-sequence, 4-period crossover, completely replicated study in 68 healthy Chinese subjects under fasting and fed conditions. The mean values of the area under the concentrationtime curve from time 0 to the last time point with blood sample collection (AUC 0-t ), area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC 0-∞ ), and maximum concentration (C max ) for the test and reference products of TAF were 248.5 and 275.7 ng/mL, 148.1 and 157.8 ng • h/mL, and 148.4 and 158.1 ng • h/mL, respectively, under the fasting condition. On the other hand, the mean value of C max , AUC 0-t , and AUC 0-∞ for the test and reference formulations of TAF were 244.6 and 246.7 ng/mL, 230.4 and 244.9 ng • h/mL, and 233.2 and 246.2 ng • h/mL, respectively, under the fed condition. The 90% confidence intervals for geometric mean ratios of AUC 0-t and AUC 0-∞ of TAF in fasting and fed states were within the bioequivalence acceptance limits when tested using the average-bioequivalence method. The point estimate value for geometric mean ratio of C max in fasting and fed states (88.4% and 95.5%, respectively) were within the bioequivalence acceptance limits as per the reference-scaled average-bioequivalence method. The safety profiles of the 2 formulations were comparable. Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated that the test formulations of TAF exhibited bioequivalence to the reference and were well tolerated by healthy Chinese subjects (Study Registry Identification Number: CTR20190086; CTR20190087).

This study assessed whether the reference and test formulations of dapoxetine hydrochloride were bioequivalent under fed and fasting conditions postadministration of a single dose as well as evaluated the safety profile of these 2 formulations. This study was a randomized, single‐center, 2‐period, open‐label, 2‐way crossover design study with a washout period of 7 days between each period. The study included 80 subjects, 40 under fed and 40 under fasting conditions. During each study period, the subjects were administered a single oral dose of either the reference or the test formulation, followed by collection of plasma samples 70 hours postdose. High‐performance liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC‐MS/MS) was performed to determine the concentrations of dapoxetine in plasma samples along with the calculation of Cmax, AUC0‐t, and AUC0‐inf. In addition, adverse events were monitored to determine the safety of these formulations. The geometric mean ratio (90%CI) for the reference and test formulations was 86% to 100%, 89% to 103%, and 89% to 103% under fasting conditions and 92% to 107%, 91% to 100%, and 92% to 101% under fed conditions for Cmax, AUC0‐t, and AUC0‐inf, respectively. The 90%CIs for the test/reference ratio for AUC and Cmax were within the acceptable limits of bioequivalence, thus demonstrating bioequivalence for these 2 dapoxetine hydrochloride formulations.

A considerable number of researches compared the effectiveness and safety different antibiotics for a disease caused by MRSA. However, comprehensive evaluated antibiotic therapeutic different diseases caused by MRSA is lacking. The network meta-analysis (NMA) comprehensively compared the effectiveness and safety of linezolid, teicoplanin, daptomycin, and tigecycline with vancomycin in treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-caused diseases. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wan-fang databases were searched for studies until Sep 28, 2021. All eligible randomized controlled trials of five antibiotics were included in the NMA, and their effectiveness and safety were compared in various MRSA-attributed diseases. The dichotomous variables adopted for the odds ratio (OR) and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) to evaluate the incidence rate. The study was performed using Rev Man 5.4 and STATA 16.0 software. SUCRA analysis revealed the superiority of linezolid to other antibiotics in total effectiveness rate (98.9%), microbial killing rate (99.6%), and total nephrotoxicity (17.8%). Regarding safety, the total adverse reaction rate of vancomycin was inferior to teicoplanin (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30–0.80). Vancomycin total hepatotoxicity was inferior to linezolid (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18–0.73) and tigecycline (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.66), and it was also inferior to linezolid (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24–0.47) and teicoplanin (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18–0.69) in total nephrotoxicity. Linezolid had a higher risk of thrombocytopenia than teicoplanin (OR 4.24, 95% CI 1.26–14.24) and vancomycin (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.17–3.90). Moreover, linezolid exhibited higher effectiveness in pneumonia compared to vancomycin (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.58–2.69) and teicoplanin (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.06–2.62). For skin and soft-tissue infections, linezolid showed superior effectiveness to vancomycin (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.20–2.18). Regarding the microbial killing rate, vancomycin was inferior to linezolid in pneumonia (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.29–0.49), skin soft-tissue infection (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21–0.79), and other infections (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20–0.83). And teicoplanin was inferior to linezolid in treating pneumonia (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33–0.81) and other infections (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18–0.86). The present research suggest that linezolid may be a better option for treating MRSA-caused diseases. However, caution is warranted owing to linezolid-associated thrombocytopenia.

Purpose: Glimepiride, an FDA-approved oral hypoglycemic drug, is a long-acting sulfonylurea (SU), used for treating type 2 diabetes. The study aimed to evaluate the bioequivalence and safety profiles of two different formulations of glimepiride 1 mg from two different manufactures in healthy Chinese subjects in the fasting and fed state in order to acquire adequate pharmacokinetic evidence for registration approval of the test formulation. Patients and Methods: This study is an open-label, two-period, two-sequence, randomized, two-way crossover pharmacokinetic study in healthy Chinese subjects in the fasting and fed state. Seventy-two subjects were randomly assigned to the fasting group and the fed group (n=36 each). We collected blood samples, 24-h post drug administration. The plasma concentration of glimepiride was assessed using HPLC coupled with mass spectrometry. The following parameters were evaluated: AUC 0-inf , AUC 0-last , C max , t 1⁄2 , T max , and λ z. Safety was determined based on the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and laboratory examinations (biochemistry, hematology, and urinalysis) throughout the entire study period. Results: The geometric mean ratios (GMR) amongst the two glimepiride formulations for the primary pharmacokinetic parameters, ie, AUC 0-inf , AUC 0-last , and C max as well as the corresponding 90% CIs, were all within the range of 80.00-125.00% in the fasting and fed state. The safety profile for both treatments was comparable. Conclusion: PK analysis revealed that the test and reference formulations of glimepiride were bioequivalent and well tolerated in healthy Chinese subjects. Chinese Clinical Trials Registry identifier: CTR20171121. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CTR20171121.