ArticlePharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Bioequivalence Analysis of Terazosin Hydrochloride Tablets Based on Parallel Artificial Membrane Permeability Analysis.
Article in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Parallel artificial membrane permeability analysis (PAMPA) is used to determine the permeability of compounds through concentrated negatively charged phospholipid bilayer barriers. We employed MacroFlux (a scaled-up version of PAMPA) to test the permeation rate of terazosin hydrochloride (TH) tablets and predict in vivo bioequivalence. The dissolution profiles and permeability of one reference formulation, and seven generic TH tablets, were compared. The dissolution profiles of these generic tablets were equivalent to that of the reference drug in four different media. However, the flux and the total permeated amount of some generic TH tablets were below the lower limit of the confidence interval of the original acceptance range in MacroFlux, which implied risk in the bioequivalence test in vivo. We further evaluated potential factors responsible for this discrepancy by µFlux, including active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) permeability and excipient prescriptions. The analysis showed that different properties of API were a main factor leading to biological inequivalence in the MacroFlux assay, while excipient prescriptions did not have an impact on bioequivalence risk. These data indicated that the flux assay may be a helpful as an auxiliary method for predicting bioequivalence of generic drugs and analyze the factors responsible for bioequivalence risk.
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.