ReviewJournal of current glaucoma practice
Evaluation of Physical Properties of Generic and Branded Travoprost Formulations.
Review in Journal of current glaucoma practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generic benzalkonium chloride-preserved travoprost eye drops are not identical to the branded polyquarternium-1-preserved travoprost eye drop: Effect on cultured human conjunctival goblet cells and their physicochemical properties.Acta ophthalmologica · 2022Article
- Generics versus brand-named drugs for glaucoma: the debate continues.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComparative evaluation of pharmaceutical characteristics of three marketed generic vs branded travoprost formulations. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree generic travoprost formulations and one branded (Travatan without benzalkonium chloride) formulation (10 vials each), obtained from authorized agents from the respective companies and having the same batch number, were used. These formulations were coded and labels were removed. At a standardized room temperature of 25°C, the drop size, pH, relative viscosity, and total drops per vial were determined for Travatan (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA) and all the generic formulations. Travoprost concentration in all four brands was estimated by using liquid chromatography-coupled tandem mass spectrometry LCMS.
resultsOut of the four formulations, two drugs (TP 1 and TP 4) were found to follow the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) limits for ophthalmic formulation regarding drug concentration, while the remaining two drugs failed due to the limits being either above 110% (TP 2) or below 90% (TP 3). Two of them (TP 1 and TP 2) had osmolality of 313 and 262 mOsm respectively, which did not comply with the osmolality limits within 300 mOsm (+ 10%). The pH of all the formulations ranged between 4.7 and 5.9, and the mean drop size was 30.23 ± 6.03 uL. The total amount of drug volume in the bottles varied from 2.58 ± 0.15 to 3.38 ± 0.06 mL/bottle.
conclusionThere are wide variations in the physical properties of generic formulations available in India. Although some generic drugs are compliant with the pharmacopeia standards, this study underscores the need for a better quality control in the production of generic travoprost formulations. How to cite this article: Wadhwani M, Mishra SK, Angmo D, Velpandian T, Sihota R, Kotnala A, Bhartiya S, Dada T. Evaluation of Physical Properties of Generic and Branded Travoprost Formulations. J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2016;10(2):49-55.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.