Indexado em
  • Banco de Dados de Periódicos Acadêmicos
  • Abra o Portão J
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • Chaves Acadêmicas
  • JournalTOCs
  • Infraestrutura Nacional de Conhecimento da China (CNKI)
  • CiteFactor
  • Scimago
  • Diretório de Periódicos de Ulrich
  • Biblioteca de periódicos eletrônicos
  • RefSeek
  • Universidade de Hamdard
  • EBSCO AZ
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Catálogo online SWB
  • Biblioteca Virtual de Biologia (vifabio)
  • publons
  • MIAR
  • Comissão de Bolsas Universitárias
  • Fundação de Genebra para Educação e Pesquisa Médica
  • Euro Pub
  • Google Scholar
Compartilhe esta página
Folheto de jornal
Flyer image

Abstrato

Bioequivalence Evaluation of Two Brands of Ketoprofen 50 Mg Capsules (Flogofin®&Profenid®) In Healthy Latin American Volunteers

Baldo MN, Hunzicker GA, Altamirano JC, Murguía MC and Hein GJ

The study was performed to compare the bioavailability of two ketoprofen capsule (50 mg) formulations: Flogofin®, as test formulation, and Profenid®, as reference formulation. The study was conducted open with randomized two period crossover design and 1 week washout period in 24 fasting, healthy latino-american male volunteers and performed at the Biopharmaceutical Research Center Dominguez Lab. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 24 h and plasma was separated and analyzed for ketoprofen, using a sensitive, reproducible, and accurate method by liquid chromatography – tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Pharmacokinetic parameters: AUC0-24, AUC0-∞, Cmax, Tmax, T1/2 and Ke, were analyzed from plasma concentrations of both formulations. The means AUC0-24 for test and reference formulation were 50.21 ([μg h]/mL) - 50.28 ([μgh]/mL), 52.38 ([μg h]/mL) - 50.84 ([μg h]/mL) for AUC0-∞, and 21.58 μg/mL - 21.65 μg/mL for Cmax, respectively. Statistical modules (ANOVA and 90% confidence intervals) were applied to AUC0–24, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to assess the bioequivalence of the two brands which revealed no significant difference between them, and 90% CI fell within the accepted bioequivalence range of 80%-125%. Based on these statistical inferences, both formulations were found to be bioequivalent.

Isenção de responsabilidade: Este resumo foi traduzido usando ferramentas de inteligência artificial e ainda não foi revisado ou verificado