Differences in bioavailability between 60 mg of nifedipine osmotic push-pull systems after fasted and fed administration.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate and compare the bioavailability of two osmotically active formulations of 60 mg nifedipine, Gen-Nifedipine extended release Test tablets (Genpharm ULC, Etobicoke, ON, Canada) and Adalat XL Reference tablets (Bayer Healthcare AG, Leverkusen, Germany) after single dose fasted and fed administration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed following a 4-period crossover design with both investigational products obtained from marketed batches. The complete pharmacokinetic evaluation was carried out in 26 healthy male subjects with a median age of 29.5 years (range 18 - 44 years), mean weight of 79.7 kg (range 66.0 - 97.5 kg), and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 24.1 kg/m(2) (range 22.1 - 26.9 kg/m(2)). Tablets were administered with tap water either under fasting conditions or immediately following a high-fat, high-calorie breakfast. Blood samples were taken predose and at pre-defined time points until 48 h post dosing. Samples were protected from light during handling and frozen until analysis. A validated LC-MS/MS method was used for the quantification of nifedipine in plasma samples. All kinetic parameters were determined model-independently for each treatment directly from measured concentrations. Monitoring of subject safety was accomplished by routine monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate and probing for adverse events. RESULTS: In-vitro dissolution curves show later onset and considerably lower quantity of nifedipine release from Test compared to Reference tablets. Under fasting conditions total and maximum exposure, represented by geometric mean AUC(0-tlast)- and C(max)-values, respectively were 466.7 h*ng/ml (AUC(0-tlast)) and 21.9 ng/ml (C(max)) for Test and 507.8 h*ng/ml (AUC(0-tlast)) and 22.0 ng/ml (C(max)) for Reference tablets. However, the Test product exhibited a notably longer lag-time and less rapid onset of absorption than the Reference tablets. Moreover, the plateau phase is maintained for about 14 hours on Test but for almost 20 hours on Reference. Point estimates (PE) and associated 90% confidence intervals (CI) were determined as 91.8% and 79.9 - 105.5% for AUC(0-tlast), as well as 99.8% and 88.6 - 112.4% for C(max). Larger differences were found for AUC(0-9h) (PE: 54.8%; CI: 45.8 - 65.5%) determined as parameter for early exposure. Under fed conditions, although the mean plasma concentration time curves look similar in shape, concentrations of Test compared to Reference tablets are considerably lower at all time points until 36 hours after dosing. Again the lag time in onset of drug absorption is notably longer for the Test product. Both, total and maximum exposure, represented by geometric mean values for AUC(0-tlast) and C(max), were considerably lower (differences also statistically significant) after administration of Test with 481.8 h*ng/ml for AUC(0-tlast) and 25.3 ng/ml for C(max) in comparison to Reference tablets with 595.9 h*ng/ml for AUC(0-tlast) and 31.9 ng/ml for C(max). Test/Reference point estimates (PE) and associated 90% confidence intervals (CI) were determined as 80.7% and 73.7 - 88.5% for AUC(0-tlast), as well as 79.6% and 70.3 - 90.0% for C(max). Differences were also even more expressed for AUC(0-9h) (PE: 54.9%; CI: 47.4 - 63.5%) determined as parameter for early exposure. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that although both products are osmotic release systems they are not bioequivalent according to the accepted standards. This difference between both osmotic delivery systems might be substantiated by the fact that the core of the Test product is designed as a monolayer system (containing both, the active ingredient and the osmotic component) while Reference tablets consist of two separate layers. The observed pharmacokinetic differences may have an impact on blood pressure control in patients and thus, should be kept in mind when switching during treatment.

Synthesis and characterization of 4,6-O-butylidene-N-(2-hydroxybenzylidene)-beta-D-glucopyranosylamine: crystal structures of 4,6-O-butylidene-alpha-D-glucopyranose, 4,6-O-butylidene-beta-D-glucopyranosylamine and 4,6-O-butylidene-N-(2-hydroxybenzylidene)-beta-D-glucopyranosylamine.

4,6-O-Butylidene-N-(2-hydroxybenzylidene)-beta-D-glucopyranosylamine was synthesized and characterized using analytical, spectral and single-crystal X-ray diffraction methods. 1H and 13C NMR studies showed the presence of the beta-anomer, which has also been confirmed by the crystal structure. The molecular structure of this compound showed the presence of the tridentate ONO ligation-core. Both precursors, 4,6-O-butylidene-alpha-D-glucopyranose and 4,6-O-butylidene-beta-D-glucopyranosylamine were characterized using single crystal X-ray diffraction. The alpha-anomeric nature of the former and beta-anomeric nature of the latter were proposed based on 1H NMR studies and were confirmed by determining the crystal structures. In addition, the crystal structure of 4,6-O-butylidene-beta-D-glucopyranosylamine revealed the C-1-N-glycosylation. In all the three molecules, the saccharide unit exhibits a 4C(1) chair conformation. In the lattice, the molecules are connected by hydrogen-bond interactions. The conformation of 4,6-O-butylidene-N-(2-hydroxybenzylidene)-beta-D-glucopyranosylamine is stabilized via an O-H...N intramolecular interaction, and each molecule in the lattice interacts with three neighboring molecules through hydrogen bonds of the type O-H...O and C-H...O.

Glycosylamines of 4,6-O-butylidene-alpha-D-glucopyranose: synthesis and characterization of glycosylamines, and the crystal structure of 4,6-O-butylidene-N-(o-chlorophenyl)-beta-D-glucopyranosylamine.

A total of nine glycosylamines of 4,6-O-butylidene-alpha-D-glucopyranose were synthesized using primary amines having various groups in their ortho- or para-positions. Among these, six are monoglycosylamines, including one primary glycosylamine, and three are bis-glycosylamines. All these compounds were characterized by 1H, 1H-1H COSY, 1H-13C COSY and 13C NMR spectroscopy and FTIR spectra. The FAB mass spectra provided the molecular weights of the products by exhibiting the corresponding molecular ion peaks. The crystal structure of 4,6-O-butylidene-N-(o-chlorophenyl)-beta-D-glucopyranosylamine revealed the C-1 glycosylation, the beta-anomeric nature, and the 4C1 chair conformation of the saccharide unit in the product. In the lattice two types of dimers exist. While one type of dimer is formed through O-H...O type of interactions, the other type is formed via C-H...O type of interactions. In the direction of these C-H...O type of interactions, the dimeric units are connected to form a chain.

Crystal structure of 4,6-O-ethylidene-N-(2-hydroxybenzylidene)-beta-D-glucopyranosylamine.

4,6-O-Ethylidene-N-(2-hydroxybenzylidene)-beta-D-glucopyranosylamine was synthesized and characterized using analytical, spectral and single-crystal X-ray diffraction methods. The anomeric nature of the saccharide moiety was proposed based on 1H NMR studies and was confirmed by the crystal structure. The lattice structure of this compound was compared with that of its analogues.

Relationships between physical dose quantities and patient dose in CT.

Patient dose in CT is usually expressed in terms of organ dose and effective dose. The latter is used as a measure of the stochastic risk. Determination of these doses by measurements or calculations can be time-consuming. We investigated the efficacy of physical dose quantities to describe the organ dose and effective dose. For various CT examinations of the head, neck and trunk, organ doses and effective doses were determined using conversion factors. Dose free-in-air on the axis of rotation (Dair) and weighted computed tomography dose index (CTDIw) were compared with the absorbed doses of organs which are located totally within the body region examined. Dose-length product (DLP) was compared with the effective dose. The ratio of the organ dose to CTDIw was 1.37 (0.87-1.79) mSv mGy-1. DLP showed a significant correlation with the effective dose (p < 0.005). The average ratio of effective dose to DLP was 0.28 x 10(-2) mSv (mGy cm)-1 for CT of the head, 0.62 x 10(-2) mSv (mGy cm)-1 for CT of the neck and 1.90 x 10(-2) mSv (mGy cm)-1 for CT of the trunk. CTDIw and DLP can be used for estimating the organ dose and effective dose associated with CT examinations of the head, neck and trunk.