ABSTRACT
The present study compared the performance of Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) and UV-Vis spectrophotometry for the quantification of metformin hydrochloride in five commercially available metformin hydrochloride products with different strengths. The metformin hydrochloride was measured in the UHPLC with a mobile phase consisting of a mixture of 0.05 M phosphate buffer solution and methanol (35:65, v/v) with a pH of 3.6. Metformin hydrochloride was determined spectrophotometrically at 234 nm using a mixture of methanol and water as a blank. The methods' linearity for metformin hydrochloride was within the concentration range of (2.5-40 µg/ml) in both techniques. The validation process encompassed assessments of specificity, selectivity, linearity, accuracy, precision, the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ), the lower limit of detection (LLOD), robustness, and system suitability. For the UHPLC validation method, the repeatability and reproducibility (expressed as relative standard deviation) were less than 1.578 and 2.718 %, respectively. The LLOQ for metformin hydrochloride was 0.625 µg/ml, and the LLOD was 0.156 µg/ml. For the UV-Vis spectrophotometric validation method, the repeatability and reproducibility (stated as relative standard deviation) were less than 3.773 and 1.988 %, respectively. The percentage recovery results for the five brands of metformin hydrochloride tablets were (98-101 %) and (92-104 %) for the UHPLC and UV-Vis spectrophotometric methods, respectively. In conclusion, the described methodologies were successfully employed for the quantitative analysis of metformin hydrochloride in different pharmaceutical tablet products.
ABSTRACT
Most of the government regulatory agencies, including the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicine Agency, demand that the generic complex topical products prove pharmaceutical and bioequivalence. The evaluation of bioequivalence for complex topical dermatological formulations is a challenging task that requires careful consideration of several factors. Although comparative clinical studies are still considered the gold standard approach for establishing bioequivalence in most formulations, these studies can be costly and insensitive to detect formulation differences. Therefore, significant efforts have been made to develop and validate alternative approaches that demonstrate bioequivalence and expedite the availability of high-quality generic topical dermatological products. This article reviews the current methods for determining the bioequivalence of topical formulations in humans, with particular emphasis on recent advances in these methodologies. Most of the alternative methods are sensitive and reproducible, with the capability to ease the financial burden of comparative clinical studies within a short delivery time. The limitations associated with each technique are reviewed in detail.
