Premium
Bioequivalence evaluation of two brands of cefaclor 500 mg capsules: quantification of cefaclor using solid phase extraction technique
Author(s) -
Tutunji M.,
Jarrar O.,
Musameh M.,
Alam S. M.,
Dham R.
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.622
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2710
pISSN - 0269-4727
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2001.00337.x
Subject(s) - bioequivalence , cefaclor , cmax , chromatography , pharmacokinetics , high performance liquid chromatography , solid phase extraction , extraction (chemistry) , crossover study , chemistry , pharmacology , medicine , biochemistry , alternative medicine , pathology , cephalosporin , placebo , antibiotics
Objective: To assess the bioequivalence of two cefaclor 500 mg capsule formulations, and to develop a new high performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) method using solid phase extraction technique for the quantification of cefaclor in human plasma. Method: An open, randomized, two‐way, crossover trial with a one‐week washout period in 25 healthy volunteers. The two commercial brands used were Recocef ® (Julphar, United Arab Emirates) as test and Ceclor ® (Eli Lilly, UK) as reference product. The drug was administered with 240 mL of water after a 10‐h overnight fast. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 8 h. Plasma harvested from blood was analysed for cefaclor by a new HPLC method using a solid phase extraction technique. The limit of detection of cefaclor was 17·6 ng/mL; average recovery was 96·5%; the intraday CV was less than 8% and interday CV was less than 13%. Various pharmacokinetic parameters, including AUC 0‐t, AUC 0‐∞ , C max , T max , T 1/2 , and K el , were determined from plasma concentrations for both formulations. Statistical analysis ( ANOVA and 90% confidence intervals) were applied to AUC 0‐t, AUC 0‐∞ and C max for bioequivalence evaluation of two brands. The new HPLC method with solid phase extraction circumvented the problem of mixed polarity of cefaclor and facilitated its extraction from the complex plasma matrix while keeping the background free from interference due to endogenous plasma compounds. Results: No significant difference was observed between the two brands of cefaclor capsules. Conclusion: Recocef ® was judged bioequivalent to Ceclor, ® and the two products can therefore be considered to be interchangeable in medical practice.