HPLC-Based Analysis of Impurities in Sapropterin Branded and Generic Tablets.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Scudellaro E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7237990 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:A simple reverse phase liquid chromatographic gradient method has been developed and validated for the simultaneous determination of specified & un-specified impurities of Telmisartan and Hydrochlorothiazide in combination oral solid dosage forms. The developed method is effective to separate a total of sixteen (16) peaks and quantify eleven (11) specified impurities of Telmisartan and three (3) specified impurities of Hydrochlorothiazide with a minimum chromatographic resolution of 2.5. The separation was acquired with Inertsil ODS-3V, 150 × 4.6 mm, 3.5 μm column at a flow rate of 1.0 mL min-1 with the mobile phase-A consists of 0.02 M potassium dihydrogen phosphate (pH of 3.5) and mobile phase-B consists of a mixture of Milli-Q water and acetonitrile (100: 900 v/v) respectively. The detection of impurities was carried out at 230 nm and column temperature was maintained at 40 °C. Further optimized chromatographic conditions were applied to design of experiments to find out the critical quality attributes and established the design space. The binary combination of drug product was subjected to the different stress conditions such as acid, base, oxidation, heat and photolysis as per the recommendations of international conference on harmonization (Q2). The degradation Product found in stress patterns are well separated among main analyte compounds. The method was validated to be specific, robust and rugged in terms of change of chromatographic, instrumental and technical variables.
| S-EPMC7322094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOpen-label 15-month follow-up of the double-blind, placebo-controlled Glatiramer Acetate clinical Trial to assess Equivalence with Copaxone® (GATE) trial.ObjectiveTo evaluate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of prolonged generic glatiramer acetate (GTR) treatment and to evaluate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching from brand glatiramer acetate (GA) to GTR treatment.MethodsA total of 729 patients received GTR 20 mg/mL daily. Safety was assessed at months 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24 and Expanded Disability Status Scale and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans at months 12, 18, and 24. The presence of glatiramer anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) was tested at baseline and months 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24.ResultsThe mean number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions in the GTR/GTR and GA/GTR groups was similar at months 12, 18, and 24. The change in other MRI parameters was also similar in the GTR/GTR and GA/GTR groups. The annualized relapse rate (ARR) did not differ between the GTR/GTR and GA/GTR groups, 0.21 and 0.24, respectively. The incidence, spectrum, and severity of reported adverse events did not differ between the GTR/GTR and GA/GTR groups. Glatiramer ADA titers were similar in the GTR/GTR and GA/GTR groups.ConclusionEfficacy and safety of GTR is maintained over 2 years. Additionally, switching from GA to GTR is safe and well tolerated.
| S-EPMC5700775 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:The purpose of the study is to determine the comparative effectiveness of generic latanoprost (GL) to its branded (BL) counterpart and other brand-name prostaglandin analogs (bPGAs) in preventing the need for additional therapy in the treatment of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG). METHODS:Retrospective cohort study using US commercial medical claims data. All new POAG patients from 2000 to 2015 who initiated treatment with either GL or BL were included. Exclusion occurred for having less than 2 years of time in the plan prior to diagnosis, previous use of glaucoma medications, or any diagnosis of glaucoma other than POAG at any time. Analyses compared GL to BL and also to those who received any branded PGA after 2011 (when the generic became available). Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess the hazards of filling a prescription for a second IOP-lowering medication or having surgical intervention, individually and either outcome combined. RESULTS:A total of 6317 and 4150 POAG patients were treated with GL and BL, respectively. After 2010, 6317 GL and 3703 brand-name prostaglandin analog (bPGA) POAG patients met criteria for inclusion. After adjustment, compared to BL, the GL conferred a reduced hazard of having a glaucoma procedure performed (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.62-0.84, p < 0.001) and the combined outcome (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83-0.97, p = 0.006) but was not associated with having a second IOP medication (HR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.87-1.03, p = 0.18). Compared to the bPGAs, however, GL conferred a reduced hazard in each comparison (second IOP medication HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81-0.94, p < 0.001; surgery HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61-0.81, p < 0.001; combined HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.79-0.92, p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS:GL was no less and possibly more effective in preventing the need for additional intervention than branded PGAs.
| S-EPMC6344297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify patient demographics and characteristics associated with compliance to statin therapy after switching from branded to generic agentsDesignRetrospective cohort study using electronic health records and pharmacy claims data from Sutter Health's ambulatory-care medical networkPatientsManaged-care beneficiaries, ? 18 years of age, who were switched from branded to generic statins between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2012 MAIN MEASURES: Compliance was calculated as days of therapy dispensed divided by days from first to last generic prescription fill over 6 months, and was defined as a medication possession ratio ? 0.80. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess factors associated with compliance. Adjusted ORs and 95% CI were generated.Key resultsWe identified 5,156 patients who were switched from branded to generic statins; 73% of patients were compliant in the 6 months after switching. After statistical adjustment, higher compliance was associated with each 10-year increase in age (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.19; p?<?0.001), receipt of a generic statin equivalent in potency to the prior branded statin (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.70; p?<?0.001), and compliance with prior branded statin (OR: 4.68; 95% CI: 4.07, 5.39; p?<?0.001). Lower compliance was seen among Hispanic patients compared to non-Hispanic white patients (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.91; p?=?0.009). Also, a switch to a higher potency generic statin, regardless of prior dose/potency, was negatively associated with compliance after switching (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.80, 0.94; p?=?0.001).ConclusionsThe majority of patients switched from branded to generic agents were compliant with therapy in the first 6 months after switching. The potential for non-compliance to generic statin therapy, particularly among younger or Hispanic patients or when dose/potency changes are made, should be considered prior to switching. For these patients, counseling or close monitoring may be required to optimize generic interchange.
| S-EPMC4175637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSwitching between generic antiepileptic drugs is a highly debated issue that affects both clinical care and overall health care costs.ObjectiveTo evaluate the single-dose pharmacokinetic bioequivalence of 3 (1 branded and 2 generic drugs) on-market, immediate-release lamotrigine drug products.Design, setting, and participantsThe Equivalence Among Antiepileptic Drug Generic and Brand Products in People With Epilepsy (EQUIGEN) single-dose study is a crossover, prospective, sequence-randomized, replicate pharmacokinetic study conducted at 5 US academic epilepsy centers. Fifty adults (≥18 years) with epilepsy who were taking concomitant antiepileptic drugs and not currently receiving lamotrigine were enrolled between July 18, 2013, and January 19, 2015. Every participant was randomly assigned to 1 of 3 equivalent sequences, each comprising 6 study periods, during which they had blood draws before and after medication administration. Forty-nine participants were included in intention-to-treat analyses.InterventionsParticipants received a single 25-mg dose of immediate-release lamotrigine at the start of each period, with the branded and the 2 most disparate generic products each studied twice. Lamotrigine was selected as the antiepileptic drug of interest because of its wide use, publications indicating problems with generic switches, and complaints to the US Food and Drug Administration regarding generic products. Both participants and study personnel were blinded to the specific generic products selected.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was bioequivalence between products. Maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) were compared, and average bioequivalence (ABE) was established if the 90% CIs of the ratios of the 2 products were within equivalence limits (80%-125%).ResultsOf the 50 randomized participants, 49 (98%) received all 3 lamotrigine products and completed at least 3 pharmacokinetic assessments and 46 (92%) completed all 6 pharmacokinetic assessments. Among the 49 participants, 28 (57%) were men and 21 (43%) were women, 42 (86%) self-identified as white, and 46 (16) years was the mean (SD) age. The 3 drug products were considered bioequivalent because the 90% CIs were within equivalence limits (lowest and highest CI limits for Cmax, 92.6% and 110.4%; for AUC0-96, 96.9% and 101.9%). Replicate testing demonstrated no significant differences in within-subject variability across the 3 products (likelihood ratios, χ22 for log-transformed variables: AUC0-96, 2.58; Cmax, 0.64; and AUC0-∞, 4.05; P ≥ .13) and that the 3 products were also bioequivalent according to scaled ABE and individual bioequivalence criteria with no subject × formulation interaction (Cmax, 0.00; AUC0-96, 0.54; and AUC0-∞, 0.36; P ≥ .76).Conclusions and relevanceThis study provides evidence that the disparate lamotrigine products studied are bioequivalent when tested in people with epilepsy taking concomitant antiepileptic drugs.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01733394.
| S-EPMC5710324 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of switching from branded to generic antiretrovirals in patients with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL.MethodsMatched-cohort study of patients followed at a single clinical center. Since September 2014, all patients with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL who were receiving branded lamivudine or zidovudine/lamivudine or efavirenz were switched to the generic compound (switchers) and matched, in a ratio 1:1, for age (±5 years), gender, anti-HCV antibodies, nadir and (±50 cells/?L) baseline CD4+ count (±100 cells/?L), duration of antiretroviral therapy (±1 year), with patients with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL, on treatment with unavailable generic compounds (non-switchers). Incidence rates (IR) of different outcomes were calculated and compared by Poisson regression model. A confirmed HIV-RNA ?50 copies/mL defined virological failure; any change in the antiretroviral regimen was defined as treatment discontinuation.ResultsFour hundred forty patients were switched to generic compounds (268 [61%] on lamivudine, 65 [15%] on zidovudine/lamivudine, 87 [20%] on efavirenz and 20 [4%] on efavirenz and either lamivudine or zidovudine/lamivudine). Over a median follow-up of 15.0 (12.1-15.7) months, virological failure occurred in four switchers (IR: 0.07 [0.02-0.18]/100-person months of follow-up [PMFU]) and in ten non-switchers (IR: 0.20 [0.10-0.35]/100-PMFU) (p = 0.0003), while treatment discontinuation occurred in 118 switchers (IR: 2.05 [1.70-2.44]/100-PMFU) and in 128 non-switchers (IR: 2.37 [1.99-2.81]/100-PMFU) (p = 0.699).ConclusionsAfter more than one year of follow-up, we found no evidence of increased risk of reduced efficacy or increased toxicity after switching from branded to generic lamivudine or zidovudine/lamivudine or efavirenz.
| S-EPMC5538668 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether the generic and branded warfarins used as anticoagulants in Brazil are therapeutic equivalents based on their international normalized ratio (INR) results.MethodsThis crossover randomized controlled trial had four periods. We used the branded Marevan and two generic versions of warfarin sodium tablets, manufactured by União Química and Teuto laboratories, all purchased from retail drugstores. Eligible participants were outpatients from an anticoagulation clinic at a university hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. They had atrial fibrillation or flutter and had been using warfarin for at least 2 months with an INR therapeutic range of 2.0-3.0. Randomization was by numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Healthcare personnel and outcome assessors were blinded to treatments, but patients were not. The primary outcome was the variability in the INR (ΔINR) and secondary outcomes included mean INR. We accepted formulations as equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the comparison of ΔINR between branded and generic formulations was within the limit of ±0.49.ResultsOne hundred patients were recruited and randomized to six sequences of treatment (four sequences with n = 17 and two sequences with n = 16). União Química generic warfarin had equivalent variability in the INR to Marevan (ΔINR +0.09 [95% CI -0.29 to +0.46], n = 84). Comparison between Teuto generic warfarin and Marevan was inconclusive (ΔINR +0.29 [95% CI -0.09 to +0.68], n = 84).ConclusionsMarevan and União Química warfarin had equivalent therapeutic effectiveness and both could be confidently used for anticoagulation. The comparison between Marevan and TW was inconclusive and does not warrant a statement of equivalence. Our methods are especially important for comparing generic and branded drugs that raise concerns and may be subject of future investigations by regulatory agents.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02017197.
| S-EPMC8016229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDissolution is the amount of substance that goes into solution per unit time under standardised conditions of liquid/solid interface, solvent composition and temperature. Dissolution is one of the most important tools to predict the in-vivo bioavailability and in some cases to determine bioequivalence and assure interchangeability.AimTo compare the differences in dissolution behaviour of solid dosage forms between innovators (reference products) and their generic counterparts (tested products).MethodsFour replicates for each batch of 37 tested medicines was carried out using A PT-DT70 dissolution tester from Pharma Test. A total of 13 branded medicines and 24 generic counterparts were obtained locally and internationally to detect any differences in their dissolution behaviour. They were tested according to the British Pharmacopeia, European Pharmacopeia and the US Pharmacopeia with the rate of dissolution determined by ultra-violet Spectrophotometery.ResultsMost tested medicines complied with the pharmacopoeial specifications and achieved 85% dissolution in 60 min. However, some generic medicines showed significant differences in dissolution rate at 60 and 120 min. Many generic medicines showed a slower dissolution rate than their branded counterparts such as the generic forms of omeprazole 20 mg. Some showed an incomplete dissolution such as the generic form of nifedipine 10 mg. Other generics showed faster dissolution rate than their branded counterpart such as the generic forms of meloxicam 15 mg. Moreover, some generics from different batches of the same manufacturer showed significant differences in their dissolution rate such as the generic forms of meloxicam 7.5 mg. Nevertheless, some generic medicines violated the EMA and the FDA guidelines for industry when they failed to achieve 85% dissolution at 60 min, such as the generic form of diclofenac sodium 50 mg.ConclusionMost medicines in this study complied with the pharmacopeial limits. However, some generics dissolved differently than their branded counterparts. This can clearly question the interchangeability between the branded and its generic counterpart or even among generics.
| S-EPMC4167181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Alfuzosin, a selective alpha-1a antagonistis is the most recently approved AARAS, with limited cardiac toxicity and exclusively used for lower urinary tract syndromes (LUTS). In order to reduce pill burden and better patient compliance modified release (MR) formulations have been developed. Alfuzosin MR tablet was developed by the use of hot-melt granulation techniques using mono- and diglycerides as rate controlling membranes to minimize health care cost and uses of costly excipients. The other purpose of the study was to evaluate in vitro-in vivo performance of the scale up batch in healthy human subjects for commercialization. The blend uniformity (mean ± RSD%), assay, cumulative percent dissolution at 24 h, hardness, and friability of the biobatch were 100.2 ± 0.05%, 100.43 ± 0.023%, 93.98%, 4.5 kg, 5 min, and 0.08%, respectively. The in vivo pharmacokinetic parameters under fasting conditions between test and reference formulations (Uroxatral 10 mg extended release tablets) were comparable. The 90% CI, geometric mean ratio (%) and power of C max, AUCT, and AUCI of the fasting study for the test and reference formulation were 99.03% to 122.78%, 109%, 0.998; 92.94% to 116.71%, 104%, 1; 98.17% to 124.01%, 110% 1, respectively. The scale up biobatch showed negligible difference in in vitro properties with respect to the pilot batch. The formulation developed with these agents was safe to use as there were no serious adverse events developed during the conduction of the clinical trial on the healthy subjects. Furthermore, the developed formulation was bioequivalent with respect to rate and extends of absorption to the reference formulation.
| S-EPMC3671720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coffee is one of the top ten most adulterated foods. Coffee adulterations are mainly performed by mixing other low-value materials into coffee beans after roasting and grinding, such as spent coffee grounds, maize, soybeans and other grain products. The detection of adulterated coffee by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is recognized as a targeted analytical method, which carbohydrates and other phenolic compounds are usually used as markers. However, the accurate qualitation and quantitation of HPLC analyses are time consuming. This study developed a chemometric analysis or called non-targeted analysis for coffee adulteration. The HPLC chromatograms were obtained by direct injection of liquid coffee into HPLC without sample preparation and the identification of target analytes. The distinction between coffee and adulterated coffee was achieved by statistical method. The HPLC-based chemometric provided more characteristic information (separated compounds) compared to photospectroscopy chemometric which only provide information of functional groups. In this study, green Arabica coffee beans, soybeans and green mung beans were roasted in industrial coffee bean roaster and then ground. Spent coffee ground was dried. Coffee and adulterants were mixed at different ratio before conducting HPLC analysis. Principal component analysis (PCA) toward HPLC data (retention time and peak intensity) was able to separate coffee from adulterated coffee. The detection limit of this method was 5%. Two models were built based on PCA data as well. The first model was used to differentiate coffee sample from adulterated coffee. The second model was designed to identify the specific adulterants mixed in the adulterated coffee. Various parameters such as sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), reliability rate (RLR), positive likelihood (+LR) and negative likelihood (-LR) were applied to evaluate the performances of the designed models. The results showed that PCA-based models were able to discriminate pure coffee from adulterated sample (coffee beans adulterated with 5%-60% of soybeans, green mung beans or spent coffee grounds). The SE, SP, RLR, +LR and -LR for the first model were 0.875, 0.938, 0.813, 14.1 and 0.133, respectively. In the second model, it can correctly distinguish the adulterated coffee from the pure coffee. However, it had only about a 30% chance to correctly determine the specific adulterant out of three designed adulterants mixed into coffee. The SE, RLR and -LR were 0.333, 0.333 and 0.667, respectively, for the second model. Therefore, HPLC-based chemometric analysis was able to detect coffee adulteration. It was very reliable on the discrimination of coffee from adulterated coffee. However, it may need more work to tell discern which kind adulterant in the adulterated coffee.
| S-EPMC7404477 | biostudies-literature