Evaluation of the pharmacological effect of Antareit^® (oral suspension, 800 mg/10 ml) in healthy volunteers

The aim of the study was to evaluate the pharmacodynamic equivalence of the drugs Antareit® (oral suspension, 800 mg/10 ml; Valenta Pharm JSC, Russia) and Riopan® (chewable tablets, 800 mg; Takeda GmbH, Germany) based on their antacid activity.
Material and methods. An open-label, two-period two-sequence crossover study was conducted to evaluate the pharmacodynamics of the test drug Antareit® (oral suspension, 800 mg/10 ml) and the reference drug Riopan® (chewable tablets, 800 mg), both administered as a single oral dose of 1600 mg. A total 50 healthy volunteers were randomized into two groups (n = 25) according to treatment sequence with a 7-day washout period between administrations. Gastric pH was continuously monitored for 1 hour after dosing using an intragastric pH probe placed in the gastric corpus. The main pharmacodynamics parameter was the area under the pH-time curve above baseline (AUCABL). Equivalence was determined by calculating the 90 % confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of marginal means of AUCABL between the two formulations. Safety was assessed through monitoring of adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, vital signs measurement, laboratory tests and electrocardiogram (ECG) findings.
Results. A total of 48 out of 50 randomized subjects completed both periods of the study. Two volunteers discontinued before receiving the drug in period 2. The 90 % CI for the AUCABL was calculated using a mixed-effects model (MIXED) and a generalized linear model (GLM). The marginal mean AUCABL values were 68,81 for Antareit®, oral suspension, 800 mg/10 ml and 68,42 for Riopan®, chewable tablets, 800 mg based on GLM analysis. The AUCABL ratio (test drug / reference drug) was 100,57 % (90 % Cl: 82,44–122,69 %), indicating non-inferiority. Three AEs occurred in two subjects: two cases of rhinorrhea in one volunteer and one case of somnolence following drug administration. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of AEs between treatments.
Conclusion. The study established pharmacodynamic equivalence between the test drug Antareit®, oral suspension, 800 mg/10 ml and the reference drug Riopan®, chewable tablets, 800 mg. The safety profiles of both treatments were found to be similar, with no significant differences observed in either the incidence or severity of AE.

1. Maev IV, Samsonov AA, Andreev DN. Role and Place of Antacids in Modern Algorithms of Treatment of Acid-related Diseases. Farmateka. 2013;(2):65-72. (In Russ.).

2. Ivanova OI, Minushkin ON. Antacids in the modern treatment of acid-base disorders. Meditsinskiy sovet = Medical Council. 2015;(13):30-37. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21518/2079-701X-2015-13-30-37.

3. V'iuchnova ES, Nikushina IN, Odintsova AN, et al. The current concepts of the role of antacid preparations in the treatment of aciddependent diseases. Russian Journal of Evidence-Based Gastroenterology. 2014;3(3):73-75. (In Russ.).

4. Perehodov SN, Milyukov VE, Bartosh NO, Krasnoperova MS. Modern assessment of epidemiology and complications of gastric and duodenal peptic ulcer disease. RUDN Journal of Medicine. 2024;28(2):230-245. (In Russ.). doi: 10.22363/2313-0245-2024-28-2-230-245.

5. Garg V, Narang P, Taneja R. Antacids revisited: review on contemporary facts and relevance for self-management. J Int Med Res. 2022 Mar;50(3):3000605221086457. doi: 10.1177/03000605221086457.

6. Bordin DS, Abdulkhakov RA, Osipenko MF, et al. Multicenter study of gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms prevalence in outpatients in Russia. Terapevticheskii Arkhiv (Ter. Arkh.). 2022;94(1):48-56. (In Russ.). doi: 10.26442/00403660.2022.01.201322.

7. Mavlyanov IR, Orziev ZM, Nurboev FE, Marufkhanov KhM. A Modern View on the Problem of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Monograph. Durdona Publishing House. Bukhara. 2021. (In Russ.).

8. Katz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Jan 1;117(1):27-56. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001538.

9. Clarrett DM, Hachem C. Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD). Mo Med. 2018 May-Jun;115(3):214-218.

10. Gromova OA, Torshin IYu, Maksimov VA. Magaldrate as an antiacid with multi-target effect: clinicalpharmacological essay. Lechashchij vrach. 2018;(2):67-73. (In Russ.).

11. Bulgakov SA. Clinical application of magaldrate antacid in the treatment of acid-dependent diseases. Russian Journal of Evidence-Based Gastroenterology. 2019;8(3):38-44. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17116/dokgastro2019803138.

12. Bulgakov SA. Antacid magaldrate in treatment of duodenal ulcer and other acid-related diseases. BULLETIN OF DAGESTAN STATE MEDICAL ACADEMY. 2018;2(27):80-84. (In Russ.).

13. Yakovlev GA, Kaibysheva VO, Nikonov EL, et al. 24-hour esophageal and gastric pH monitoring: interpretation errors and their clinical significance. Russian Journal of Evidence-Based Gastroenterology. 2018;7(3):11-17. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17116/dokgastro2018703111.

14. Smith JL, Opekun AR, Larkai E, Graham DY. Sensitivity of the esophageal mucosa to pH in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology. 1989 Mar;96(3):683-9.

15. Carlsson R, Dent J, Bolling-Sternevald E, et al. The usefulness of a structured questionnaire in the assessment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1998 Oct;33(10):1023-9. doi: 10.1080/003655298750026697.

16. Bredenoord AJ, Weusten BL, Curvers WL, et al. Determinants of perception of heartburn and regurgitation. Gut. 2006 Mar;55(3):313-8. doi: 10.1136/gut.2005.074690.

17. Ang D, Sifrim D, Tack J. Mechanisms of heartburn. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Jul;5(7):383-92. doi: 10.1038/ncpgasthep1160.

18. Miwa H, Kondo T, Oshima T. Gastroesophageal reflux disease-related and functional heartburn: pathophysiology and treatment. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2016 Jul;32(4):344-52. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000282.

19. Reinke CM, Breitkreutz J, Leuenberger H. Aluminium in over-thecounter drugs: risks outweigh benefits? Drug Saf. 2003;26(14):1011-25. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200326140-00003.

20. Rauch H, Fleischer F, Böhrer H, et al. Serum aluminium levels of intensive care patients treated with two different antacids for prevention of stress ulceration. Intensive Care Med. 1989;15(2):84-6. doi: 10.1007/BF00295982.

21. Burgos Castillo MJ, Cruz Palacios MJ, Iorgatchof Xavier K, et al. Evaluation of Aluminum and Magnesium Absorption Following the Oral Administration of an Antacid Suspension Containing Magaldrate in Healthy Women Under Fed Conditions. Adv Ther. 2024 Nov;41(11):4089-4097. doi: 10.1007/s12325-024-02969-9.