• English
    • Persian
  • English 
    • English
    • Persian
  • Login
View Item 
  •   KR-TBZMED Home
  • TBZMED Published Academics Works
  • Published Articles
  • View Item
  •   KR-TBZMED Home
  • TBZMED Published Academics Works
  • Published Articles
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Comparative bioavailability study of two cefixime formulations administered orally in healthy male volunteers

Thumbnail
Date
2008
Author
Zakeri-Milani, P
Valizadeh, H
Islambulchilar, Z
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
The bioavatlabitity of a new cefixime ((6R,7R)-7-[(Z)-2-(2-amino-4-thiazolyl)-2-(carboxymethoxyimino) acetamido]-8oxo-3-vinyl-5-thia-1-azabicyclo-[4,2,0]-oct-2-ene-2-carboxylic acid, CAS 79350-37-1) tablet preparation (Loprax (R)) was compared with that of a reference preparation of the drug in 24 healthy male volunteers. The trial was designed as an open, randomized, single-blind, two-sequence, two-period crossover study. Under fasting conditions, each subject received a single oral dose of 400 mg cefixime tablet as a test or reference formulation on 2 treatment days. The treatment periods were separated by a one-week washout period. The plasma concentrations of the drug were analyzed by a rapid and sensitive HPLC method with UV detection. The pharmacokinetic parameters included AUC(0-24h), AUC(0-infinity) C-max, t(1/2), and K-e. The mean AUCO-infinity of cefixime was 45008.7 +/- 10989.9 and 45221.3 +/- 2155.7 n . h/ml for the test and reference formulation, respectively. The maximum plasma concentration (C-max) of cefixime was on average 4746.9 +/- 1284 ng/ml for the test and 4726.3 +/- 1206.9 ng/ml for the reference product. No statistical differences were observed for Cmax and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve for test and reference tablets. The calculated 90% confidence intervals based on the ANOVA analysis for the mean test/reference ratios of Cmax, AUC(0-infinity) and AUC(0-24h) of cefixime were in the bioequivalence range (94%-112% Therefore, the two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent.
URI
http://dspace.tbzmed.ac.ir:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/51460
Collections
  • Published Articles

Knowledge repository of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences using DSpace software copyright © 2018  HTMLMAP
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
Atmire NV
 

 

Browse

All of KR-TBZMEDCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

My Account

LoginRegister

Knowledge repository of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences using DSpace software copyright © 2018  HTMLMAP
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
Atmire NV