一些市售品牌盐酸氯雷他定片的药物等效研究。

O A Adetunji, N F Adigun, M A Odeniyi
{"title":"一些市售品牌盐酸氯雷他定片的药物等效研究。","authors":"O A Adetunji,&nbsp;N F Adigun,&nbsp;M A Odeniyi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study was undertaken with the objective of evaluating the pharmaceutical and chemical equivalence of some commercially available loratadine tablets, and offers a possible explanation for the therapeutic failure of the drug products.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The equivalence of eight brands of loratadine hydrochloride tablets labelled A to H was assessed and compared with the Innovator brand labelled I. Visual observation and uniformity of weight tests were carried out on the tablets, mechanical properties were assessed using friability and crushing strength tests as parameters. Release properties of the tablets were assessed by disintegration and dissolution tests. Assay was based on non-aqueous titration procedure using crystal violet solution indicator.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>All the brands studied were white in colour with different shapes and lustre, and complied with the official specification for uniformity of tablet weight. Friability tests showed that only brand G lost more than 1% of its initial weight, while brands A and E failed the crushing strength test. Brand C did not undergo complete disintegration within 15 minutes, while brands A, B, F and G had less than 70% of the active drug content still in solution after 45 minutes. Two of the brands had active drug content between officially specified range of 98.5% and 101.5% for loratadine tablets.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was a large variation in the pharmaceutical properties of the commercially available loratadine hydrochloride tablets that were selected for this study. Six of the brands evaluated exhibited poor pharmaceutical properties. Generally, only two of the brands were pharmaceutically equivalent with the innovator brand.</p>","PeriodicalId":7616,"journal":{"name":"African journal of medicine and medical sciences","volume":"44 3","pages":"269-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmaceutical equivalent studies of some commercially available brands of Loratadine hydrochloride tablets.\",\"authors\":\"O A Adetunji,&nbsp;N F Adigun,&nbsp;M A Odeniyi\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study was undertaken with the objective of evaluating the pharmaceutical and chemical equivalence of some commercially available loratadine tablets, and offers a possible explanation for the therapeutic failure of the drug products.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The equivalence of eight brands of loratadine hydrochloride tablets labelled A to H was assessed and compared with the Innovator brand labelled I. Visual observation and uniformity of weight tests were carried out on the tablets, mechanical properties were assessed using friability and crushing strength tests as parameters. Release properties of the tablets were assessed by disintegration and dissolution tests. Assay was based on non-aqueous titration procedure using crystal violet solution indicator.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>All the brands studied were white in colour with different shapes and lustre, and complied with the official specification for uniformity of tablet weight. Friability tests showed that only brand G lost more than 1% of its initial weight, while brands A and E failed the crushing strength test. Brand C did not undergo complete disintegration within 15 minutes, while brands A, B, F and G had less than 70% of the active drug content still in solution after 45 minutes. Two of the brands had active drug content between officially specified range of 98.5% and 101.5% for loratadine tablets.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was a large variation in the pharmaceutical properties of the commercially available loratadine hydrochloride tablets that were selected for this study. Six of the brands evaluated exhibited poor pharmaceutical properties. Generally, only two of the brands were pharmaceutically equivalent with the innovator brand.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African journal of medicine and medical sciences\",\"volume\":\"44 3\",\"pages\":\"269-76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African journal of medicine and medical sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African journal of medicine and medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是评估一些市售氯雷他定片的药物和化学等效性,并为药物产品的治疗失败提供可能的解释。方法:对8个品牌的盐酸氯雷他定片进行A ~ H标记的等效性评价,并与Innovator品牌的i标记进行对比。对片剂进行目视观察和重量均匀性试验,以脆性和抗压强度试验为参数评价其力学性能。通过崩解和溶出度试验评价了片的释放性能。采用结晶紫溶液指示剂进行非水滴定。结果:所研究的各品牌均为白色,形状和光泽不同,符合片剂重量均匀性的官方规范。脆性试验表明,只有G品牌的初始重量损失超过1%,而A和E品牌的破碎强度试验不合格。品牌C在15分钟内没有完全崩解,而品牌A、B、F和G在45分钟后仍在溶液中的有效药物含量不足70%。其中两个品牌氯雷他定片的有效药物含量在98.5% ~ 101.5%的官方规定范围内。结论:本研究选用的市售盐酸氯雷他定片的药理学性质存在较大差异。6个被评估的品牌表现出较差的药物性能。一般来说,只有两个品牌与创新品牌在药物上是等同的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pharmaceutical equivalent studies of some commercially available brands of Loratadine hydrochloride tablets.

Background: This study was undertaken with the objective of evaluating the pharmaceutical and chemical equivalence of some commercially available loratadine tablets, and offers a possible explanation for the therapeutic failure of the drug products.

Method: The equivalence of eight brands of loratadine hydrochloride tablets labelled A to H was assessed and compared with the Innovator brand labelled I. Visual observation and uniformity of weight tests were carried out on the tablets, mechanical properties were assessed using friability and crushing strength tests as parameters. Release properties of the tablets were assessed by disintegration and dissolution tests. Assay was based on non-aqueous titration procedure using crystal violet solution indicator.

Result: All the brands studied were white in colour with different shapes and lustre, and complied with the official specification for uniformity of tablet weight. Friability tests showed that only brand G lost more than 1% of its initial weight, while brands A and E failed the crushing strength test. Brand C did not undergo complete disintegration within 15 minutes, while brands A, B, F and G had less than 70% of the active drug content still in solution after 45 minutes. Two of the brands had active drug content between officially specified range of 98.5% and 101.5% for loratadine tablets.

Conclusion: There was a large variation in the pharmaceutical properties of the commercially available loratadine hydrochloride tablets that were selected for this study. Six of the brands evaluated exhibited poor pharmaceutical properties. Generally, only two of the brands were pharmaceutically equivalent with the innovator brand.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信