Pharmacokinetic evaluation of different generic triclabendazole formulations in heifers.

Descripción del Articulo

AIMS: To assess the comparative drug systemic exposure of a reference (RF) and four test (Test I, Test II, Test III and Test IV) formulations of triclabendazole (TCBZ) in heifers. METHODS: Thirty Holstein heifers were randomly distributed into five groups (n=6 per group). Animals in the RF group rec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Ortiz-Oblitas, P., Castope, N., Cabrera, M., Farías, C., Suárez, G., Lanusse, C., Álvarez, L.
Formato: artículo
Fecha de Publicación:2014
Institución:Universidad Nacional de Cajamarca
Repositorio:UNC-Institucional
Lenguaje:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:repositorio.unc.edu.pe:20.500.14074/9772
Enlace del recurso:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14074/9772
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2014.925411
Nivel de acceso:acceso abierto
Materia:Flukicidal control
triclabendazole
generic formulations
bioequivalence
https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#4.03.01
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: To assess the comparative drug systemic exposure of a reference (RF) and four test (Test I, Test II, Test III and Test IV) formulations of triclabendazole (TCBZ) in heifers. METHODS: Thirty Holstein heifers were randomly distributed into five groups (n=6 per group). Animals in the RF group received the reference formulation (Fasinex), and those in the other groups received different commercially available TCBZ formulations (Test I, Test II, Test III and Test IV). All treatments were orally administered at 12 mg/kg bodyweight. The concentrations of TCBZ metabolites in plasma between 0 and 168 hours after treatment were quantified by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). RESULTS: Triclabendazole sulphoxide (TCBZ.SO) and TCBZ-sulphone (TCBZ.SO2) were the only analytes recovered in plasma. Only the Test I formulation did not differ from the RF for all pharmacokinetic parameters measured for either metabolite (p>0.8). The TCBZ.SO area under the concentration vs. time curve for Test II formulation (268.9 µg.h/mL) was lower, and for Test III (619.9 µg.h/mL) and Test IV (683.4 µg.h/mL) was higher, than the RF (418.1 µg.h/mL) (p<0.005). CONCLUSION: Based on the currently available bioequivalence criteria, the only test formulation under evaluation that could be considered equivalent to the RF was the Test I formulation, which demonstrated an equivalent systemic exposure for the active TCBZ.SO metabolite. This comparison of TCBZ pioneer and test formulations in cattle raises awareness of the need for further quality control for drug approval in the veterinary pharmaceutical field in many regions of the world.
Nota importante:
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).