In vitro dissolution profile of two commercially available iron preparations.

BACKGROUND: Current scientific evidence indicates that anemia in pregnancy, regardless of severity, is associated with an increased risk of maternal and fetal mortality. There is little published information about the bioavailability and bioequivalence of formulations containing both iron and folic acid. However, in vitro dissolution studies can provide important information on the likely relative bioavailability of various formulations. AIM: The objective of our study was to compare the in vitro dissolution of two similar commercially available formulations of iron- and folic acid-containing supplements, Folifer® (Bialport - Produtos Farmacêuticos, S.A., Portugal) and Ferroliver® (SM Pharma c.a., Venezuela), in order to determine the in vitro availability of their iron content. Folifer® and Ferroliver® were chosen because they contained similar amounts of elemental iron. METHODS: The amount of iron released from each tablet was evaluated over a 4-hour period in three dissolution media replicating gastric or intestinal juices with pH values ranging from 1.5 to 6.9. The samples were then titrated with a solution of cerium ammonium sulfate in order to calculate the amount of iron released in each specific pH condition. The percentage of dissolved iron was calculated as a cumulative frequency, using the percentage of dissolved iron at all timepoints. The dissolution similarity between the two commercially available formulations was evaluated using the &U0192;(2) statistic formula. RESULTS: During a 4-hour dissolution test, Folifer® released 59.4 mg of iron compared with 48.5 mg released by Ferroliver®. The value obtained for the similarity factor, an indicator of likely bioequivalence, was 41. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that Folifer® releases more iron than Ferroliver®, and that the two formulations are not equivalent in vitro. The superior dissolution of ferrous sulfate with Folifer® compared with ferrous fumarate in Ferroliver® might be responsible for the observed difference.

Dosage form proportionality and food effect of the final tablet formulation of eslicarbazepine acetate: randomized, open-label, crossover, single-centre study in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the dosage form proportionality and food effect of the final tablet formulation of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in healthy volunteers. METHODS: This was a randomized, three-way crossover, single-centre study in 18 healthy volunteers. Subjects received a single dose of oral ESL 800 mg following a standard meal in one period, and following 10 hours of fasting in two separate periods (in the form of one 800 mg tablet [reference] or two 400 mg tablets [test]). The statistical method was based upon the 90% confidence interval (CI) of maximum observed plasma drug concentration (C(max)), area under the plasma concentration time curve (AUC) from time zero to the last sampling time at which concentrations were at or above the lower limit of quantification (AUC(t)) and AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC(infinity)) geometric means ratios (GMRs) of BIA 2-005, the enantiomeric mixture of the ESL active metabolite eslicarbazepine and its enantiomer R-licarbazepine. Bioequivalence was assumed when the 90% CI of the test/reference GMR fell within the bioequivalence acceptance interval (80.00, 125.00). RESULTS: Following a single dose of ESL 800 mg in the forms of two 400 mg tablets and one 800 mg tablet, the test/reference GMR (%) and 90% CI for C(max), AUC(t) and AUC(infinity) were 100.78% (93.91, 108.16), 100.37% (97.82, 102.99) and 100.48% (97.91, 103.13), respectively. Following administration of one 800 mg tablet in fed (test) and fasting (reference) conditions, the test/reference GMR and 90% CI for C(max), AUC(t) and AUC(infinity) were 100.96% (94.08, 108.35), 96.79% (94.34, 99.32) and 96.75% (94.27, 99.29), respectively. Treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The bioequivalence criteria between the ESL 400 mg and 800 mg tablets were met and dosage form proportionality was demonstrated. The presence of food had no influence on ESL pharmacokinetics, indicating that ESL can be administered without regard to meals with no significant effects on drug disposition or extent of systemic exposure.