Author(s): Sean Cayco, Cherrie Muaña

Email(s): seancayco@yahoo.com

DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00963   

Address: Sean Cayco1,2*, Cherrie Muaña1
1University of The Immaculate Conception, Father Selga St., Davao City, Philippines.
2College of Health Sciences Education, Pharmacy Program, University of Mindanao, Davao City, Philippines.
*Corresponding Author

Published In:   Volume - 15,      Issue - 12,     Year - 2022


ABSTRACT:
This study investigated the physicochemical and in-vitro equivalence of the innovator and fifteen generic brands of amlodipine besylate tablets marketed in selected community drugstores in Davao City, Philippines. The samples were coded from A to P and assayed for weight uniformity, hardness, friability, disintegration, potency, content uniformity, and dissolution using the methods described in the USP. The percentage of drug content was determined using the spectrophotometric method. The results showed that all brands conformed to the USP standard for weight uniformity, friability, and disintegration test. In addition, nine generic brands did not conform to the USP standard for the hardness test. All brands meet the USP requirement for potency with a mean content of not less than 90% and not greater than 110% of the labeled claim. Six generic brands did not conform to the USP standard for content uniformity, with acceptance values higher than the specification of 15.0%. All brands conformed to the USP standard for dissolution or percentage drug release. Further, the dissolution profile comparisons showed that 14 out of 15(93.33%) generic brands of amlodipine besylate tablets could be used interchangeably with the innovator drug. In conclusion, this study confirmed the importance of continuous monitoring of generic drugs' safety, quality, and efficacy to ensure equivalence and compliance with pharmacopeia standards and aid the prescribers’ decision-making in generic dispensing.


Cite this article:
Sean Cayco, Cherrie Muaña. Physicochemical and In-Vitro Equivalence of 15 Generic Amlodipine Besylate Tablets Marketed in Davao City, Philippines. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology 2022; 15(12):5714-0. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00963

Cite(Electronic):
Sean Cayco, Cherrie Muaña. Physicochemical and In-Vitro Equivalence of 15 Generic Amlodipine Besylate Tablets Marketed in Davao City, Philippines. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology 2022; 15(12):5714-0. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00963   Available on: https://rjptonline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2022-15-12-57


REFERENCES:
1.    World Health Organization. The Top Ten Causes of Death. 2020 Dec 9; available on https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the -top-10-causes-of-death
2.    Jarari N, et   al. A review on prescribing patterns of antihypertensive drugs. Clin Hypertens. 2016 Mar 27;22:7. doi:10.1186/s40885-016-0042-0
3.    United States Food and Drug Administration. Amlodipine Besylate Tablets. 2007 available on https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2007/019787s042lbl.pdf
4.    Sewell K, et  al. Perceptions of and  barriers to use of generic medications in a rural African American  population, Alabama, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E142. doi: 10.5888/pcd9.120010
5.    Wong JQ, et al. Prevalence of Philippine Prescribing, Dispensing, and Use Behavior in Relation to Generic Drugs and their Risk Factors. Philippine Journal of Development. 2013;40(1):125-159 available on https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/prevalence-philippine-prescribing-dispensing-use/docview/1757019955/se-2?accountid=31259.
6.    Charjan SM, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Quality Control Parameters of Marketed Antidiabetic Tablet. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 4(5): May 2011; Page 801-805.
7.    Ganesh B. Vambhurkar, et al. Evaluation of five Different Marketed Brands of Paracetamol Tablets using Quality Control Tests. Asian J. Pharm. Tech. 2018; 8 (4):227-230. doi: 10.5958/2231-5713.2018.00035.1
8.    Mamatha T, et al. Comparative In-Vitro Evaluation of Marketed Paracetamol Tablets. Research J. Pharma. Dosage Forms and Tech. 2009; 1(2): 100-102.
9.    Pujari A, et al. In-Vitro Evaluation of Different Marketed Brands of Paracetamol Tablets Using Quality Control Tests . Asian J. Pharm. Tech. 2018; 8 (3):119-122 . doi: 10.5958/2231-5713.2018.00019.3
10.    Ghotkar M, et al. In-Vitro Evaluation of different marketed brands of Rabiprazol Tablets using Quality Control Tests. Asian J. Pharm. Ana. 2020; 10(2): 99-102. doi: 10.5958/2231-5675.2020.00017.4
11.    Jain V, et al. HPTLC method for routine quality control of Ayurvedic formulation Drakshadi gutika. Asian J. Pharm. Ana. 3(4): Oct. - Dec. 2013; Page 111-114.
12.    Mammari N, et al. Comparative In-vitro Evaluation of Metformin HCl Extended Release Tablets Marketed in Syria. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2019; 12(7):3365-3370. doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2019.00568.7
13.    Maged AN, et al. In-vitro evaluation of Captopril tablets present in Yemen markets. Research J. Pharma. Dosage Forms and Tech. 2012; 4(2): 124-127 .
14.    Sreerekha CH, et al. Generic Drugs a Benison to Mankind. Res. J. Pharma. Dosage Forms and Tech. 2019; 11(2): 121-125. doi: 10.5958/0975-4377.2019.00019.3
15.    United States Pharmacopeial Convention. The United States Pharmacopeia 2018 :  USP 41; The National  Formulary : NF 36. Rockville, MD. 2017.
16.    16. United States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry: Dissolution testing of   immediate release solid oral dosage forms. 1997 available on http://www.fda.gov/cder/Guidance/1713bp1.pdf.
17.    United States Food and Drug Administration. Bioavailability and Bioequivalence requirements. 1992 available on https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/12/19/02-31996/bioavailability-and-bioequivalence-requirements-abbreviated-applications-final-rule
18.    United States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for Industry: Bioavailability and   Bioequivalence Studies for Orally Administered Drug Products – General Considerations. 2002 available on http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/4964dft.pdf.
19.    Moore, JW. Mathematical Comparison of Dissolution Profiles. Pharmaceutical Technology. 1996;20, 64-75.
20.    Du J, Hoag SW. Characterization of excipient and tableting factors that influence folic  acid dissolution, friability, and breaking strength  of oil- and  water-soluble multivitamin with minerals  tablets. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2003 Nov;29(10):1137-47. doi: 10.1081/ddc-120025871
21.    Hamad IM, et al.  Effect of the Lubricant Magnesium Stearate on Changes of Specific Surface Area of Directly Compressible Powders Under Compression. Jordan J. Pharm. Sci. 2014;8, 21–33.
22.    Deshmukh H, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Disintegrant in Orodispersible Tablet of Aceclofenac. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 5(6): June 2012; Page 775-779.




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 

0.38
2018CiteScore
 
56th percentile
Powered by  Scopus


SCImago Journal & Country Rank


Recent Articles




Tags


Not Available