Author(s): Hamzah Maswadeh, Ahmed A. H. Abdellatif, Mohammed A. Amin, Aiman Y. Alwadi, Mohamed A. Ibrahim

Email(s): msodh@qu.edu.sa

DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2021.00938   

Address: Hamzah Maswadeh1*, Ahmed A. H. Abdellatif1,2, Mohammed A. Amin1,2, Aiman Y. Alwadi4, Mohamed A. Ibrahim2,3
1Department of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, Qassim University, Qassim, 51452, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
2Department of Pharmaceutics and Industrial Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Al-Azhar University, Assiut 71524, Egypt.
3Department of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.
4Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
*Corresponding Author

Published In:   Volume - 14,      Issue - 10,     Year - 2021


ABSTRACT:
The aim of this study was to predict the blood/plasma drug concentration profiles for five brand of nifedipine present on the Saudi Arabia market by using the numerical convolution method and to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters (Cmax, Tmax, Ka, K and Vd) by the application of the residual method to the predicted plasma drug concentration profiles. Results showed that the higher Cmax was 118.95ng/ml for brand A2 and the lower Cmax was 72.29ng/ml for brand A3. The Tmax was ranged from 2.3 hr to 4.9 hr for brands A2 and A3 respectively. The total area under plasma drug concentration curve (AUCinf.) was in lower value equal to 585.59 ng x hr/ml for brand A2 and the higher value was for brand A5 equal to 743.52ng x hr/ml. The volume of distribution was also increased from 52.5 L for free nifidipine to 72 L for brand A1. The predicted first order elimination rate constant was decreased from 0.34 hr-1 for free nifedipine to 0.17 hr-1 for brand A3. The half-life of nifedapine was increased from 2 hours for free drug to 3.93 hours for brand A3. From this study it can be concluded that brands present in the market that shows similarity in accordance to the Dissimilarity factor f1 are not always guaranty that they will be bioequivalent in vivo and vice versa. Also, this study indicates that the method of convolution is a useful tool for prediction of bioequivalence of different brands present on the market.


Cite this article:
Hamzah Maswadeh, Ahmed A. H. Abdellatif, Mohammed A. Amin, Aiman Y. Alwadi, Mohamed A. Ibrahim. Prediction of Plasma Drug Concentration Profiles and Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Nifedipine Commercial Tablets using the Convolution Method. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology 2021; 14(10):5380-4. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2021.00938

Cite(Electronic):
Hamzah Maswadeh, Ahmed A. H. Abdellatif, Mohammed A. Amin, Aiman Y. Alwadi, Mohamed A. Ibrahim. Prediction of Plasma Drug Concentration Profiles and Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Nifedipine Commercial Tablets using the Convolution Method. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology 2021; 14(10):5380-4. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2021.00938   Available on: https://rjptonline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2021-14-10-56


REFERENCES:
1.    Wilbert SA. Treatment of systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiovasc Dis 2(3): 160-170.
2.    Snider ME, Nuzum DS, Veverka A (2008) Long-acting nifedipine in the management of the hypertensive patient. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2012; 4: 1249-1257.
3.    Meredith PA, Elliott HL. A review of the gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) formulation and its effectiveness in the delivery of antihypertensive drug treatment (focus on nifedipine GITS). Integrated Blood Pressure Control. 2013; 6: 79-87.
4.    Chavda HV, Patel CN, Anand IS. Biopharmaceutics Classification System. Sys Rev Pharm. 2010; 1(1): 62-69.
5.    Somani AA, et al. Evaluation of changes in oral drug absorption in preterm and term neonates for Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) class I and II compounds. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016; 81(1): 137-47.
6.    Ilic M, Kovacevic I, Parojcic J. Deciphering nifedipine in vivo delivery from modified release dosage forms: Identification of food effect. Acta Pharm. 2015; 65: 427-441.
7.    Shimamoto K et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of high-dose controlled release nifedipine (80mg per day) in Japanese patients with essential hypertension. Hypertension Research. 2015; 1-6.
8.    Akarawut W, Suvakontha T, Poompanich A. Pharmaceutical quality of nifedipine soft capsules commercially available in Thailand. Journal of Health Sci. 2002; 11: 1-8.
9.    Poonguzhali S et al. Comparative in vitro evaluation of commercial atenolol tablets. RJPBCS. 2014; 5(6): 30-35.
10.    Okoye EI, Iwuagwu MA. Physicochemical equivalence of some brands of Nifedipine retard tablets available in Nigeria. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010; 9: 1274-1279.
11.    Akhter DT et al. Design and formulation of twice daily nifedipine sustained release tablet using methocel K15M CR and methocel K100LV CR. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2012; 4: 121-124.
12.    Ugoeze KC, Emenike CR. In vitro evaluation of the quality control parameters of six brands of sustained release nifedipine tablets. JOPHAS. 2016; 13(2): 2392-2398.
13.    Minami J et al. Comparison of once-daily nifedipine controlled- release with twice-daily nifedipine retard in the treatment of essential hypertension. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004; 57: 632-639.
14.    Gajendran J et al. Biowaiver monographs for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms: nifedipine. J Pharma Sci. 2015; 4: 3289- 98.
15.    Asare CO et al. Comparative in vitro dissolution of commercially available sustained release nifedipine tablet brands in the Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana. JAPS. 2015; 5: 54-60.
16.    Garbacz G et al. Comparison of dissolution profiles obtained from nifedipine extended release once a day products using different dissolution test apparatuses Eur J Pharm Sci. 2009; 38: 147-155.
17.    Mirza T et al. Use of in vitro-in vivo correlation to predict the pharmacokinetics of several products containing a BCS class 1 drug in extended release matrices. Pharm Res. 2013; 30(1): 179- 190.
18.    Emami J. In vitro-in vivo correlation: from theory to applications. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2006; 9(2): 169-89.
19.    Kostewicz ES et al. In vitro models for the prediction of in vivo performance of oral dosage forms. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2014; 16; 57: 342-66.
20.    Skripnik KKS et al. Investigation of the dissolution profile of gliclazide modified-release tablets using different apparatuses and dissolution conditions. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech. 2017; 18(5): 1785- 1794.
21.    Mangas-Sanjuan V et al. Assessment of the regulatory methods for the comparison of highly variable dissolution profiles. AAPSJ. 2016; 18(6): 1550-1561.
22.    Maswadeh H. Dissolution and compatibility study of binary and ternary interactive mixtures of indomethacin: Comparison with commercially available capsules. Acta Polo Pharma. 2016; 73(3): 739-748.
23.    Maswadeh H. Lyoequivalency, dissolution kinetics and drug- excipient compatibility of some commercially available acetaminophen tablets. Journal of Pharm Res. 2017; 11(1): 57-63.
24.    Costa P1, SousaLobo JM. Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2001; 13(2): 123-133.
25.    Wang F, Saidel GM, Gao J. A mechanistic model of controlled drug release from polymer millirods: Effects of excipients and complex binding. J Controlled Release. 2007; 119: 111-120.
26.    Echizen H, Eichelbaum M. Clinical pharmacokinetics of verapamil, nifedipine and diltiazem. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1986; 11(6): 425-449.
27.    Cainazzo MM et al. Pharmacokinetics of a new extended-release nifedipine formulation following a single oral dose in human volunteers. Drug Exp Clin Res. 2005; 31(3): 115-121.
28.    Ramsch KD et al. Pharmacokinetics and metabolism of calcium- blocking agents nifedipine, nitrendipine and nimodipine. Am J Nephrol. 1986; 6(1): 73-80.

Recomonded Articles:

Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology (RJPT) is an international, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal.... Read more >>>

RNI: CHHENG00387/33/1/2008-TC                     
DOI: 10.5958/0974-360X 

1.3
2021CiteScore
 
56th percentile
Powered by  Scopus


SCImago Journal & Country Rank


Recent Articles




Tags


Not Available