The prevalence, clinical characteristics, and prognosis of diastolic heart failure: a clinical study in elderly Saudi patients with up to 5 years follow-up.

Data from 519 patients older than 65 years with congestive heart failure (CHF) were analyzed after 5 years of clinical follow-up. Two groups were included in the analysis: 321 patients with ejection fractions > or =50% (group with diastolic heart failure) and 198 patients with reduced ejection fraction <50% (group with systolic heart failure). Hypertension (81%) was the strongest predictor of congestive heart failure, followed by diabetes (46%) and coronary disease (33%). Diastolic heart failure was more predominant in elderly female (P=.007), hypertensive (P=.0001), and hypertrophic (P=.001) patients. Length of hospital stay, readmission rate, all-cause morbidity, and cumulative mortality were not statistically significant between both groups (P=.09).

Bioeqivalence assessment of two domperidone 1 tablet formulations.

A randomized, single-dose, crossover study was conducted to assess the bioavailability of two domperidone (CAS 57808-66-9) tablet formulations, Domperidone (test) and a commercially available original preparation (reference) under fasting conditions. A 10 mg dose of each formulation was administered to 36 healthy male volunteers with a one-week washout period, 17 blood samples were collected over 48 h, plasma concentrations of domperidone were analyzed by a locally validated LC-MS-MS assay, and the pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by the standard non-compartmental method. Mean +/- SD maximum concentration (C(max)), time to reach maximum concentration (T(max)), areas under the curve (AUC(0 --> t and AUC(0 --> infininty)), and elimination constant (K(el)) were 17.13 +/- 9.62 and 17.67 +/- 7.97 ng/ml, 0.87 +/- 0.58, and 0.89 +/- 0.33 h, 73.12 +/- 43.37 and 71.45 +/- 35.41 ng x h/ml, 90.32 +/- 48.55 and 87.08 +/- 40.29 ng x h/ml, and 0.069 +/- 0.046 and 0.068 +/- 0.048 h(-1) for the test and reference formulation, respectively. The parametric 90% confidence intervals on the mean difference between log-transformed values of the two formulations were within the acceptable bioequivalence range for AUC(0 --> t) (87.84% to 109.60%), AUC(0 --> infinity) (89.05% to 111.67%) and C(max) (83.28% to 107.50%). ANOVA revealed significant subject's effect for AU4C(0 --> t), AUC((0 -->infinity), C(max), and t1/2 with a ratio of the inter-subject to intra-subject coefficient of variation of 2.10, 1.55, 1.10, and 1.02, respectively. The results indicate that the two formulations are equivalent in relation to the extent and rate of absorption and confirm the previously reported marked intra-individual variations in the pharmacokinetics of domperidone.

Bioequivalence assessment of two capsule formulations of omeprazole in healthy volunteers.

A randomized, single-dose, crossover study was conducted to assess the bioavailability of two omeprazole (CAS 73590-58-6) capsule formulations, Emilok (test) and a commercially available original preparation (reference), under fasting conditions. A 20 mg dose of each formulation was administered to 36 healthy male volunteers with one-week washout period, 17 blood samples were collected over 12 h, plasma omeprazole concentrations were determined by a locally validated high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) assay, and omeprazole pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed by the standard non-compartmental method. Mean +/- SD of Cmax, Tmax, AUC(0 --> t), AUC(0 --> infinity), and t1/2 were 0.41 +/- 0.21 and 0.48 +/- 0.27 microg/ml, 1.98 +/- 1.02 and 1.63 +/- 0.78 h, 0.95 +/- 0.78 and 1.00 +/- 0.90 microg x h/ml, 0.99 +/- 0.81 and 1.04 +/- 0.95 microg x h/ml, and 1.30 +/- 0.64 and 1.14 +/- 0.61 h for the test and reference formulations, respectively. The parametric 90% confidence intervals on mean difference between log-transformed values of the two formulations were within the acceptable bioequivalence range of 80% to 125% for AUC(0 --> t) and AUC(0 --> infinity) (88.63% to 104.98%, and 91.71% to 106.86%, respectively) but not for Cmax (76.27% to 103.63%). ANOVA revealed significant subject's effect for AUC(0 --> t), AUC(0 --> infinity), Cmax, and t1/2 with a ratio of the inter-subject to intra-subject coefficient of variation of 3.66, 3.92, 1.25, and 1.46, respectively. The results confirm the presence of marked individual variations in the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole and indicate that the two formulations are equivalent in relation to the extent but not the rate of absorption.

Bioequivalence study of two amoxicillin formulations.

A randomized single-dose crossover study was conducted in 24 healthy male volunteers to compare the bioavailability of two amoxicillin (CAS 26787-78-0) formulations, Glomox tablet (test) and a commercially available original preparation, amoxicillin capsule (reference). One thousand milligram of each formulation were administered after an overnight fast with a washout period of three days. Sixteen blood samples were collected over 10 h, amoxicillin concentrations in deproteinized serum were determined by a high performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) assay, and pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed by the standard non-compartmental method. Mean +/- SD maximum concentration (Cmax), time to reach maximum concentration (Tmax), area under the curve (AUC0-->t and AUC0-->infinity), and elimination half-life (t1/2) were 13.30 +/- 4.52 and 12.99 +/- 3.56 microg/ml, 1.92 +/- 0.76 and 2.02 +/- 0.62 h, 42.50 +/- 13.62 and 42.24 +/- 12.35 microg x h/ml, 46.31 +/- 13.23 and 46.08 +/- 12.14 microg x h/ml, and 1.54 +/- 0.39 and 1.48 +/- 0.48 h for the test and reference formulation, respectively. The parametric 90 % confidence intervals of the mean of the difference (test-reference) between log-transformed values of the two formulations were 92.61% to 109.50%, 92.83% to 109.12%, and 93.11% to 109.41% for AUC0-->t, AUC0-->infinity, and Cmax, respectively. The results indicate that the two formulations can be considered equivalent with regard to the rate and extent of absorption under fasting conditions.

Bioequivalence evaluation of two formulations of fluconazole 150 mg capsule in healthy Arab men.

A randomized crossover study was conducted on 26 healthy Arab males to compare the bioavailability of two formulations of fluconazole 150 mg capsules, Fluconazole (test) and Diflucan (reference). The formulations were administered after an overnight fast with a washout period of 2 weeks. Twenty blood samples (per period) were collected over 168 h, plasma fluconazole concentrations were determined by locally validated high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) assay and pharmacokinetic parameters were analysed by the standard non-compartmental method. The mean +/- SD maximum concentration (C(max)), time to reach maximum concentration (T(max)), area under the curve (AUC(0-->t) and AUC(0-->infinity)) and elimination half-life (t(1/2)) were 3.17+/-0.47 and 3.24+/-0.59 microg/ml, 2.62+/-2.01 and 2.65+/-1.63 h, 149.52+/-29.49 and 151.36+/-25.84 microg.h/ml, 163.57+/-29.9 and 164.89+/-26.46 microg.h/ml, and 36.81+/-5.72 and 36.56+/-5.36 h for the test and reference drug, respectively. These values are similar to previously reported values in other ethnic groups. The parametric 90% confidence intervals on the mean of the difference (test-reference) between the log-transformed values of the two formulations were 95.484% to 101.035%, 96.382% to 101.245% and 94.621% to 102.074% for AUC(0-->t), AUC(0-->infinity) and C(max), respectively. The results indicate that the two formulations are equivalent in the rate and extent of absorption. Further, a review of the literature indicates that there is no apparent ethnic variation in the absorption and elimination rates of fluconazole.

Bioequivalence of two oral formulations of nizatidine capsules in healthy male volunteers.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized, crossover study was to compare the bioavailability of a generic and an innovator formulation of nizatidine 300 mg capsules under fasting conditions. METHODS: Twenty blood samples per period were collected from 20 healthy, Arab male volunteers over 16 h, plasma nizatidine concentrations were determined by HPLC assay, and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by the non-compartmental method. RESULTS: Mean+/-SD C(max), T(max), AUC(0-->t), AUC(0-->infinity), and t1/2 were 2.96+/-0.54 and 3.28+/-0.68 microg/ml, 1.31+/-0.70 and 0.93+/-0.38 h, 9.04+/-1.66 and 9.03+/-1.94 microg x h/ml, 9.17+/-1.64 and 9.12+/-1.94 microg x h/ml, and 1.64+/-0.21 and 1.58+/-0.22 h for the generic and innovator formulation, respectively. The parametric 90% confidence intervals on the mean of the difference between log-transformed values were 98.06% to 103.21%, 98.74% to 103.71%, and 83.37% to 101.34%, for AUC(0-->t), AUC(0-->infinity), and C(max), respectively. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that these two formulations are equivalent in the rate and extent of absorption.