44 research outputs found
Estudo da demanda reprimida em Oftalmologia: hospital de Divinolândia/Unicamp
OBJECTIVE: To assess the waiting time for eye care identifying the number of patients with each complaint; to investigate how the waiting time may worsen the patient's condition; to check the screening of urgent cases for effectiveness; and to devise means of increasing the medical-surgical care capacity. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive survey was conducted using data obtained on 12 occasions during collaborative team visits to provide eyecare services. These initiatives were designed to decrease the waiting time and to treat urgent cases that occurred on each occasion; eyecare services were provided every Saturday, in the period from June to August 2006, in 16 cities of the region covered by Conderg (Consortium for the Development of the São João da Boa Vista Administrative Region). RESULTS: Referrals used 1,743 (87.1%) of the 2,000 places available. The most frequent diagnoses were refractive errors, with 683 cases, corresponding to 39.1% of the total, followed by cataracts, with 296 cases, corresponding to 20.9%. Of the 238 surgeries indicated, 54.6% were phakectomies. Thirty-five (2.0%) cases were considered urgent. CONCLUSION: The most common diagnoses made during the team visits to manage the excess demand for eyecare were refractive errors and cataracts, which, together, accounted for the majority of the cases. The Divinolândia Hospital has the necessary human and material resources to meet the demand left unattended by the local SUS network. Immediate referral of urgent cases by the primary units' screeners proved effective
Evolution of a physiological pH 6.8 bicarbonate buffer system: application to the dissolution testing of enteric coated products.
The use of compendial pH 6.8 phosphate buffer to assess dissolution of enteric coated products gives rise to poor in vitro-in vivo correlations because of the inadequacy of the buffer to resemble small intestinal fluids. A more representative and physiological medium, pH 6.8 bicarbonate buffer, was developed to evaluate the dissolution behaviour of enteric coatings. The bicarbonate system was evolved from pH7.4 Hanks balanced salt solution to produce a pH 6.8 bicarbonate buffer (modified Hanks buffer, mHanks), which resembles the ionic composition and buffer capacity of intestinal milieu. Prednisolone tablets were coated with a range of enteric polymers: hypromellose phthalate (HP-50 and HP-55), cellulose acetate phthalate (CAP), hypromellose acetate succinate (HPMCAS-LF and HPMCAS-MF), methacrylic acid copolymers (EUDRAGIT® L100-55, EUDRAGIT® L30D-55 and EUDRAGIT® L100) and polyvinyl acetate phthalate (PVAP). Dissolution of coated tablets was carried out using USP-II apparatus in 0.1M HCl for 2h followed by pH 6.8 phosphate buffer or pH 6.8 mHanks bicarbonate buffer. In pH 6.8 phosphate buffer, the various enteric polymer coated products displayed rapid and comparable dissolution profiles. In pH 6.8 mHanks buffer, drug release was delayed and marked differences were observed between the various coated tablets, which is comparable to the delayed disintegration times reported in the literature for enteric coated products in the human small intestine. In summary, the use of pH 6.8 physiological bicarbonate buffer (mHanks) provides more realistic and discriminative in vitro release assessment of enteric coated formulations compared to compendial phosphate buffer
Adjusted indirect comparisons to assess bioequivalence between generic clopidogrel products in Serbia
Aims Generic products can be regarded as therapeutically equivalent and switchable with the reference product. However, switchability between generics is unknown, as direct comparisons between generics are not performed. The aim of this study was to investigate the bioequivalence between generic clopidogrel products by means of adjusted indirect comparisons (AICs). Methods AICs were conducted to assess bioequivalence between 4 generic clopidogrel products that are authorised in Serbia. Generics are considered equivalent to the reference if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios test/reference of the maximum concentration (C-max) and area under the curve up to the last measurable concentration (AUC(0-t)) fall within the acceptance range 80.00-125.00%. However, for AICs between generics, the Canadian acceptance criterion for C-max was employed, where only the point estimate of C-max needs to be within 80.00-125.00%. Results The 90% CIs of the AICs demonstrated bioequivalence within 80.00-125.00% for all AUC(0-t) comparisons. The point estimates of C-max in all AICs were also within this range. Conclusion This study demonstrates that the bioavailability of these 4 generic clopidogrel products authorised in Serbia is very similar. Despite the limited power of AICs, bioequivalence was demonstrated for all 90% CIs of AUC(0-t) and all 90% CIs of C-max comparisons were within or very close to the acceptance range, being able to comply with the acceptance criterion employed in Canada for C-max. Therefore, these 4 generic clopidogrel products authorised in Serbia can be considered switchable with each other in clinical practice based on the adjusted indirect comparisons
Implementing the additional strength biowaiver for generics: EMA recommended approaches and challenges for a US-FDA submission
International audienceThis review describes the EMA requirements on biowaivers for additional strengths of immediate release and modified release oral solid dosage forms focused on generic applications and highlights the challenges for a simultaneous EMA and FDA submission. Some specificities of the current EMA guidelines are compared with the current FDA Guidance for Industry, with a special focus on the strength to be investigated in vivo, formulation suitability for biowaiver, and optimizing dissolution studies for additional strength biowaivers. In Europe, the same principles applied for generics may be considered for deriving the biowaivers for innovator products. Several case studies are presented to illustrate the challenges of applying for additional strength biowaivers in EMA and FDA simultaneously