Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23718725›Full record

Trial reportMalaria journal2013

Comparison of bioavailability between the most available generic tablet formulation containing artemether and lumefantrine on the Tanzanian market and the innovator's product.

Omary M S Minzi, Ignace A Marealle, Seif Shekalaghe, Omar Juma, Eliford Ngaimisi, Mwajuma Chemba, Mastidia Rutaihwa, Salim Abdulla, Philip Sasi

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Malaria journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Omary M S Minzi
Ignace A Marealle
Seif Shekalaghe
Omar Juma
Eliford Ngaimisi
Mwajuma Chemba
Mastidia Rutaihwa
Salim Abdulla
Philip Sasi
Ifakara Health Institute · TZMuhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences · TZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExistence of anti-malarial generic drugs with low bioavailability marketed on sub-Saharan Africa raises a concern on patients achieving therapeutic concentrations after intake of such products. This work compared bioavailability of one generic tablet formulation with innovator's product. Both were fixed dose combination tablet formulations containing artemether and lumefantrine. METHODOLOGY: The study was conducted in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, in which a survey of the most abundant generic containing artemether-lumefantrine tablet formulation was carried out in retail pharmacies. The most widely available generic (Artefan®, Ajanta Pharma Ltd, Maharashtra, India) was sampled for bioavailability comparison with Coartem® (Novartis Pharma, Basel, Switzerland)--the innovator's product. A randomized, two-treatment cross-over study was conducted in 18 healthy Tanzanian black male volunteers. Each volunteer received Artefan® (test) and Coartem® (as reference) formulation separated by 42 days of drug-free washout period. Serial blood samples were collected up to 168 hours after oral administration of a single dose of each treatment. Quantitation of lumefantrine plasma levels was done using HPLC with UV detection. Bioequivalence of the two products was assessed in accordance with the US Food and Drug Authority (FDA) guidelines.

resultsThe most widely available generic in pharmacies was Artefan® from India. All eighteen enrolled volunteers completed the study and both test and reference tablet formulations were well tolerated. It was possible to quantify lumefantrine alone, therefore, the pharmacokinetic parameters reported herein are for lumefantrine. The geometric mean ratios for Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ were 84% in all cases and within FDA recommended bioequivalence limits of 80%-125%, but the 90% confidence intervals were outside FDA recommended limits (CI 49-143%, 53-137%, 52-135% respectively). There were no statistical significant differences between the two formulations with regard to PK parameters (P > 0.05).

conclusionsAlthough the ratios of AUCs and Cmax were within the acceptable FDA range, bioequivalence between Artefan® and Coartem® tablet formulations was not demonstrated due to failure to comply with the FDA 90% confidence interval criteria. Based on the observed total drug exposure (AUCs), Artefan® is likely to produce a similar therapeutic response as Coartem®.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAntimalarialsArtemetherArtemisininsBiological AvailabilityCross-Over StudiesDrugs, GenericEthanolaminesFluorenesHumansLumefantrineMaleTabletsTanzaniaTherapeutic EquivalencyAntimalarialsArtemetherArtemisininsDrugs, GenericEthanolaminesFluorenesLumefantrineTablets

Identifiers

PMID23718725
PMCPMC3669611
OpenAlexW2103117079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.