Assessment of Dissolution Profile of Marketed Aceclofenac Formulations

Statistical comparison of dissolution profiles under a variety of conditions relating to formulation characteristics, lot-to-lot, and brand-to-brand variation attracts interest of pharmaceutical scientist. The objective of this work is to apply several profile comparison approaches to the dissolution data of five-marketed aceclofenac tablet formulations. Model-independent approaches including ANOVA-based procedures, ratio test procedure, and pair wise procedure. The ratio test includes percentage, area under the curve, mean dissolution time, while the pair wise procedure includes difference factor (f1), similarity factor (f2), and Rescigno index. In the model-dependent approach, zero order, first order, Hixson-Crowell, Higuchi, and Weibull models were applied to the utilization of fit factors. All the approaches were applicable and useful. ANOVA with multiple comparison tests was found to be sensitive and discriminating for comparing the profiles. Weibull parameters were more sensitive to the difference between two release kinetic data in terms of curve shape and level

Through the looking glass: understanding non-inferiority

Non-inferiority trials test whether a new product is not unacceptably worse than a product already in use. This paper introduces concepts related to non-inferiority, and discusses the regulatory views of both the European Medicines Agency and the United States Food and Drug Administration

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy, parallel-group study to determine the safety and efficacy of oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets in patients with moderate/severe, chronic cancer pain

Objective: An examination of whether oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets (OXN PR) can improve constipation and maintain analgesia, compared with oxycodone prolonged-release tablets (OxyPR) in patients with moderate/severe cancer pain

An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.

Contains fulltext : 53374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)A difference in an outcome variable between the treatment groups in a trial does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the number of patients who experience relevant improvement on that variable. When the relevant improvement corresponds with an outcome or change in outcome that exceeds a certain threshold, the outcome variable can be dichotomized. A responder is a patient whose outcome exceeds the threshold. Comparisons can be made between the number of responders in the two treatment groups using logistic regression, or some other method to evaluate binary outcomes. An important disadvantage of this approach is the loss of power. In general, it is more efficient to test the difference between the mean values.We developed a statistical test that compares response rates for a dichotomized variable. It requires that an estimate of the reliability of the outcome variable is available. Simulations showed that the test was valid and robust over a wide range of distributions and sample sizes. The power was greater than the power of a chi(2) test, which would enable substantial reduction in the sample size

Inhibition of endothelin receptors in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: does selectivity matter?

Treatment options for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have considerably improved in the past few years. Endothelin (ET)-receptor antagonism has been established as a first-line option for the majority of PAH patients. Endothelin-receptor antagonists (ETRAs) comprise sulfonamide and non-sulfonamide agents with different affinities for ET-receptor subtypes (ETA and ETB), and the focus of development has shifted from drugs with less selectivity to those with high selectivity. There is ongoing debate as to whether selective or non-selective ET-receptor antagonism is more beneficial in the treatment of PAH. This paper reviews the current evidence from experimental and clinical studies obtained from a thorough literature search focusing on the three marketed drugs bosentan, sitaxentan, and ambrisentan. A clinically meaningful difference among the three approved ETRAs with respect to their ET-receptor selectivity could not be demonstrated to date. Therefore, in clinical practice, other features are likely to be of greater relevance when considering treatment, such as the potential for serious drug–drug interactions, convenience of dosing schedule, or rates of limiting side effects. These characteristics bear more relation to the chemical or pharmacological properties of the drugs than to receptor selectivity itself

Duloxetine compared with fluoxetine and venlafaxine: use of meta-regression analysis for indirect comparisons

BACKGROUND: Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited. A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with venlafaxine, the other antidepressant in the same therapeutic class with a significant market share, has been undertaken. In the absence of relevant data to assess the place that duloxetine should occupy in the therapeutic arsenal, indirect comparisons are the most rigorous way to go. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of duloxetine, fluoxetine and venlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and performed indirect comparisons through meta-regressions. METHODS: The bibliography of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and the CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase databases were interrogated using advanced search strategies based on a combination of text and index terms. The search focused on randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials involving adult patients treated for acute phase Major Depressive Disorder. All outcomes were derived to take account for varying placebo responses throughout studies. Primary outcome was treatment efficacy as measured by Hedge's g effect size. Secondary outcomes were response and dropout rates as measured by log odds ratios. Meta-regressions were run to indirectly compare the drugs. Sensitivity analysis, assessing the influence of individual studies over the results, and the influence of patients' characteristics were run. RESULTS: 22 studies involving fluoxetine, 9 involving duloxetine and 8 involving venlafaxine were selected. Using indirect comparison methodology, estimated effect sizes for efficacy compared with duloxetine were 0.11 [-0.14;0.36] for fluoxetine and 0.22 [0.06;0.38] for venlafaxine. Response log odds ratios were -0.21 [-0.44;0.03], 0.70 [0.26;1.14]. Dropout log odds ratios were -0.02 [-0.33;0.29], 0.21 [-0.13;0.55]. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were consistent. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine was not statistically different in either tolerability or efficacy when compared with duloxetine. Venlafaxine was significantly superior to duloxetine in all analyses except dropout rate. In the absence of relevant data from head-to-head comparison trials, results suggest that venlafaxine is superior compared with duloxetine and that duloxetine does not differentiate from fluoxetine