RESUMEN
A bioequivalence study of two oral formulations of 20 mg fluoxetine was carried out in 24 healthy volunteers following a single dose, two-sequence, crossover randomized design at International Pharmaceutical Research Centre (IPRC), Amman, Jordan. The two formulations were Flutin capsules (Julphar, UAE) as test and Prozac capsules (Eli Lilly, UK) as reference product. Test and reference capsules were administered to each subject after an overnight fasting on two treatment days separated by a 28 day washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 360 h. Plasma harvested from blood was analysed for fluoxetine by a sensitive, reproducible and accurate LC-MS method. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity), C(max), T(max), T(1/2), and lambda(Z) were determined from plasma concentrations for both formulations and found to be in good agreement with reported values. AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity) and C(max) were tested for bioequivalence after log-transformation of data. No significant difference was found based on ANOVA; 90% confidence interval (94.60%-106.41% for AUC(0-t), 94.6%-108.14% for AUC(0-infinity); 91.88%-103.65% for C(max)) for test/reference ratio of these parameters were found within FDA acceptance range of 80%-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, it was concluded that Flutin is bioequivalent to Prozac and can be used interchangeably in medical practice.
Asunto(s)
Fluoxetina/farmacocinética , Inhibidores Selectivos de la Recaptación de Serotonina/farmacocinética , Adulto , Área Bajo la Curva , Cápsulas , Estudios Cruzados , Fluoxetina/administración & dosificación , Humanos , Masculino , Equivalencia TerapéuticaRESUMEN
Two studies were performed to assess the relative bioavailability of Lovrak (Julphar, UAE) compared with Zovirax (Glaxo Wellcome, UK) at the International Pharmaceutical Research Center (IPRC), Amman, Jordan. One study involved acyclovir tablets and the other acyclovir suspension. Each study enrolled 24 volunteers and in both studies, after an overnight fasting, the two brands of acyclovir were administered as a single dose on 2 treatment days separated by 1 week washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 16 h. Plasma harvested from blood, was analysed for acyclovir by an HPLC method with UV detection. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC0-t, AUC0-infinity, Cmax, Tmax, T1/2 and Kelm were determined from plasma concentrations for both formulations and found to be in good agreement with the reported values. AUC0-t, AUC(0-proportional to), and Cmax were tested for bioequivalence after log-transformation of data. No significant difference was found based on ANOVA; 90% confidence intervals for the test/reference ratio of these parameters were found within the bioequivalence acceptance range 80%-125%. Based on these statistical inferences it was concluded that a Lovrak tablet is bioequivalent to a Zovirax tablet and that Lovrak suspension is bioequivalent to Zovirax suspension.
Asunto(s)
Aciclovir/farmacocinética , Industria Farmacéutica , Medicamentos Genéricos/farmacocinética , Aciclovir/administración & dosificación , Aciclovir/sangre , Administración Oral , Adulto , Área Bajo la Curva , Semivida , Humanos , Masculino , Preparaciones Farmacéuticas , Tecnología Farmacéutica/métodos , Tecnología Farmacéutica/normas , Equivalencia TerapéuticaRESUMEN
A bioequivalence study of two oral formulations of 100 mg atenolol was carried out in 24 healthy volunteers following a single dose, two-sequence, cross-over randomized design at the International Pharmaceutical Research Centre (IPRC), as a joint venture with Al-Mowasah Hospital, Amman, Jordan. The two formulations were Tensotin (Julphar, UAE) as test and Tenormin (Zeneca, UK) as reference product. Both test and reference tablets were administered with 240 ml of water to each subject after an overnight fast on 2 treatment days separated by a 1 week washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 36 h. Whole blood was analysed for atenolol by a sensitive, reproducible and accurate HPLC method with fluorescence detection capable of detecting atenolol in the range of 20-1600 ng/ml with a limit of quantitation of 20 ng/ml. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC0-t, AUC0-proportional to), Cmax, Tmax, T1/2 and lambdaZ were determined from blood concentrations of both formulations and found to be in good agreement with reported values. AUC0-t, AUC0-proportional to), and Cmax were tested for bioequivalence after log-transformation of data using ANOVA and 90% confidence interval and were found within the acceptable range of 80%-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, it was concluded that Tensotin is bioequivalent to Tenormin.
Asunto(s)
Atenolol/farmacocinética , Comprimidos , Equivalencia Terapéutica , Administración Oral , Adulto , Área Bajo la Curva , Atenolol/administración & dosificación , Atenolol/sangre , Disponibilidad Biológica , Semivida , Humanos , Masculino , Tecnología Farmacéutica/métodos , Tecnología Farmacéutica/normasRESUMEN
A randomized, two-way, crossover, bioequivalence study in 24 fasting, healthy, male volunteers was conducted to compare two brands of aceclofenac 100 mg tablets, Aceclofar (Julphar, UAE) as test and Bristaflam (Bristol Myers Squibb, Egypt) as the reference product. The drug was administered with 240 ml of water after a 10 h overnight fast on two treatment days separated by 1 week washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 24 h. Plasma harvested from blood was analysed for aceclofenac by a validated HPLC method with UV-visible detection capable of detecting aceclofenac in the range 0.2-8.0 microg/ml with the limit of quantitation as 0.2 microg/ml. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC(0-t), AUC(0- infinity ), C(max), T(max), T(1/2), and lambda(Z) were determined from plasma concentrations for both formulations and found to be in good agreement with reported values. AUC(0-t), AUC(0- infinity), and C(max) were tested for bioequivalence after log-transformation of data. No significant difference was found based on ANOVA; 90% confidence interval (100.0%-106.4% for AUC(0-t), 100.2%-106.8% for AUC(0- infinity ); 83.3%-102.8% for C(max)) of test/reference ratio for these parameters were found to be within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80%-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, it was concluded that Aceclofar is bioequivalent to Bristaflam.
Asunto(s)
Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos/farmacocinética , Diclofenaco/análogos & derivados , Diclofenaco/farmacocinética , Administración Oral , Adulto , Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos/sangre , Área Bajo la Curva , Cromatografía Líquida de Alta Presión , Estudios Cruzados , Diclofenaco/sangre , Humanos , Modelos Lineales , Masculino , Comprimidos , Equivalencia TerapéuticaRESUMEN
The bioequivalence of two brands of enalapril 20 mg tablets was demonstrated in 24 healthy human volunteers after a single oral dose in a randomized cross-over study, conducted at IPRC, Amman, Jordan. Reference (Renitec, MSD, Netherlands) and test (Narapril, Julphar, UAE) products were administered to fasted male volunteers; blood samples were collected at specified time intervals, plasma separated and analysed for enalapril and its active metabolite (enalaprilat) using a validated LC-MS/MS method at Cartesius Analytical Unit, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, USP, Sao Paulo, Brazil. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity), Cmax, Tmax, T(1/2) and elimination rate constant were determined from plasma concentration-time profile for both formulations and were compared statistically to evaluate bioequivalence between the two brands, using the statistical modules recommended by FDA. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) did not show any significant difference between the two formulations and 90% confidence intervals fell within the acceptable range for bioequivalence. Based on these statistical inferences it was concluded that the two brands exhibited comparable pharmacokinetic profiles and that Julphar's Narapril is bioequivalent to Renitec of MSD, Netherlands.
Asunto(s)
Enalapril/sangre , Enalapril/farmacocinética , Adolescente , Adulto , Análisis de Varianza , Área Bajo la Curva , Química Farmacéutica , Intervalos de Confianza , Estudios Cruzados , Enalapril/química , Humanos , Masculino , Comprimidos Recubiertos , Equivalencia TerapéuticaRESUMEN
A randomized, two-way, crossover, bioequivalence study was conducted in 24 fasting, healthy, male volunteers to compare two brands of furosemide 40 mg tablets, Salurin (Julphar, UAE) as test and Lasix (Hoechst AG, Germany) as reference product. The study was performed at the International Pharmaceutical Research Centre (IPRC), in a joint venture with Al-Mowasah Hospital, Amman, Jordan. One tablet of either formulation was administered with 240 ml of water after a 10 h overnight fast. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 12 h. Plasma harvested from blood was analysed for furosemide by a validated HPLC method. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity), C(max), T(max), T(1/2), and elimination rate constant were determined from plasma concentrations of both formulations. Statistical modules (ANOVA and 90% confidence intervals) were applied to AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity), and C(max) to assess the bioequivalence of the two brands which revealed no significant difference between them, and 90% CI fell within the US FDA accepted bioequivalence range of 80%-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, Salurin was found to be bioequivalent to Lasix.
Asunto(s)
Furosemida/farmacocinética , Comprimidos/farmacocinética , Equivalencia Terapéutica , Administración Oral , Área Bajo la Curva , Estudios Cruzados , Diuréticos/administración & dosificación , Diuréticos/sangre , Diuréticos/farmacocinética , Furosemida/administración & dosificación , Furosemida/sangre , Semivida , Humanos , Jordania , Masculino , Comprimidos/administración & dosificación , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
The pharmacokinetics of two brands of simvastatin 40 mg tablets were compared in 24 healthy human volunteers after a single oral dose in a randomized cross-over study, conducted at IPRC, Amman, Jordan. Reference (Zocor, MSD, Netherlands) and test (Simvast, Julphar, UAE) products were administered to fasted volunteers; blood samples were collected at specified time intervals, plasma separated and analyzed for simvastatin and its active metabolite (beta-hydoxy acid) using a validated LC-MS/MS method at Cartesius Analytical Unit, Institute of Biomedical Sciences - USP, Sao Paulo, Brazil. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-t), AUC(0-variant), C(MAX), T(MAX), T(1/2) and elimination rate constant were determined from plasma concentration-time profile for both formulations and were compared statistically to evaluate bioequivalence between the two brands, using the statistical modules recommended by FDA. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) did not show any significant difference between the two formulations and 90% confidence intervals fell within the acceptable range for bioequivalence. Based on these statistical inferences it was concluded that the two brands exhibited comparable pharmacokinetic profiles and that Julphar's Simvast is bioequivalent to Zocor of MSD, Netherlands.
Asunto(s)
Hipolipemiantes/farmacocinética , Simvastatina/farmacocinética , Administración Oral , Adolescente , Adulto , Área Bajo la Curva , Cromatografía Líquida de Alta Presión , Cromatografía Liquida , Estudios Cruzados , Semivida , Humanos , Hipolipemiantes/administración & dosificación , Hipolipemiantes/sangre , Hígado/enzimología , Hígado/metabolismo , Masculino , Espectrometría de Masas , Simvastatina/administración & dosificación , Simvastatina/análogos & derivados , Simvastatina/sangre , Simvastatina/metabolismo , Equivalencia Terapéutica , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
A study was conducted to establish bioequivalence between two oral cyclosporine 100 mg capsules, Sigmasporin Microoral (Gulf Pharmaceutical Industries - Julphar, United Arab Emirates, under technical co-operation with Sigma Pharma, Brazil) and Sandimmun Neoral (Novartis, Switzerland), in a Middle Eastern population, even though both formulations were found to be bioequivalent earlier in a Brazilian population (data on file). It was designed as a randomized, open label, two-way crossover study in which 30 fasting, healthy male volunteers received a single 100 mg cyclosporine dose with 240 ml of water on two treatment days separated by a 1 week washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 24 h. Plasma was analyzed for cyclosporine A by a sensitive, reproducible and accurate HPLC method with MS detection capable of detecting cyclosporine A in the range of 5-400 ng/ml with a limit of quantitation of 5 ng/ml. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC(0-t), AUC(0- proportional, variant ), C(max), T(max), T(1/2), and lambda(Z) were determined from plasma concentrations of both formulations. AUC(0-t), AUC(0- proportional, variant ), and C(max) were tested for bioequivalence after log-transformation of data. No significant difference was found based on ANOVA; 90% confidence intervals (82.98-110.57% for AUC(0-t), 81.57-124.71% for AUC(0- proportional, variant ), 80.15-98.91% for C(max)) for these parameters were found to be within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, it was concluded that Sigmasporin Microoral is bioequivalent to Sandimmun Neoral.
Asunto(s)
Ciclosporina/farmacocinética , Administración Oral , Adolescente , Adulto , Área Bajo la Curva , Cápsulas , Química Farmacéutica , Cromatografía Líquida de Alta Presión , Ciclosporina/sangre , Cromatografía de Gases y Espectrometría de Masas , Semivida , Humanos , Masculino , Equivalencia Terapéutica , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
A randomized, two-way, crossover study was conducted in 24 fasting, healthy, male volunteers to compare the bioavailability of two brands of metformin 500 mg tablets; Dialon (Julphar, UAE) as test and Glucophage (Lipha Pharmaceutical Industries, France) as reference product. The study was performed at the International Pharmaceutical Research Centre (IPRC), in joint venture with Al-Mowasah Hospital, Amman, Jordan. The drug was administered with 240 ml of water after a 10-h overnight fasting on two treatment days separated by 1-week washout period. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 30 h. Plasma harvested from blood was analyzed for metformin by validated HPLC method with UV-visible detector capable to detect metformin in the range of 0.05-5.0 microg/ml with limit of quantitation of 0.05 microg/ml. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC(0-t), AUC(0-proportional to), C(max), T(max), T(1/2), and lambda(Z) were determined from plasma concentrations of both formulations and found to be in good agreement with reported values. AUC(0-t), AUC(0-proportional to) and C(max) were tested for bioequivalence after log-transformation of data. No significant difference was found based on ANOVA; 90% confidence interval (97.9-110.8% for AUC(0-t), 97.4-110.7% for AUC(0-proportional to); 95.3-110.5% for C(max)) of test/reference ratio for these parameters were found within bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, it was concluded that Dialon is bioequivalent to Glucophage.
Asunto(s)
Metformina/farmacocinética , Adolescente , Adulto , Análisis de Varianza , Área Bajo la Curva , Intervalos de Confianza , Estudios Cruzados , Formas de Dosificación , Evaluación de Medicamentos/métodos , Evaluación de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Metformina/sangre , Comprimidos , Equivalencia TerapéuticaRESUMEN
A randomized, two-way, crossover, bioequivalence study in 24 fasting, healthy, male volunteers was conducted to compare two brands of gliclazide 80 mg tablets, Glyzide (Julphar, UAE) as test and Diamicron (Servier Industries, France) as reference product. The study was performed at the International Pharmaceutical Research Centre (IPRC), in joint venture with Speciality Hospital, Amman, Jordan. The drug was administered with 240 ml of 20% glucose solution after a 10 h overnight fasting. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 48 h. Plasma harvested from blood was analyzed for gliclazide by validated HPLC method. Various pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC(0-t), AUC(0- proportional, variant), C(max), T(max), T(1/2), and elimination rate constant were determined from plasma concentrations of both formulations. Statistical modules (ANOVA and 90% confidence intervals) were applied to AUC(0-t), AUC(0- proportional, variant), and C(max) for bioequivalence evaluation of the two brands which revealed no significant difference between them, and 90% CI fell within US FDA accepted bioequivalence range of 80-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, Glyzide was judged bioequivalent to Diamicron.