The aim of study was to compare the bioavailability of ranitidine obtained from either Ranitidine (300 mg tablet; LPH® S.C. LaborMed Pharma S.A. Romania: the test formulation) and Zantac® (300 mg tablet; GlaxoSmithKline, Austria: the reference formulation). Twelve, Romanian, healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study. An open-label, two-period, crossover, randomized design was used. Plasma levels of ranitidine were determined using the validated, high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) method. The physiologically motivated time-delayed model was used for the data evaluation and a paired Student's t-test and Schuirmann's two one-sided tests were carried out to compare parameters. Nonmodeling parameters (AUC(t), AUC, C(max), T(max)) were tested by the paired Student's t-test and the 90 confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratios were determined by Schuirmann's tests. Paired Student's t-test showed no significant differences between nonmodeling and modeling parameters. The results of the Schuirmann's tests however indicated significant statistical differences with reference to AUC(t), AUC, C(max), T(max) and other modeling parameters, especially MT(c) and τ(c). Schuirmann's tests revealed significant bioequivalence between ranitidine formulations using the modeling parameters MRT and n. The presented model can be useful as an additional tool to assess drug bioequivalence, by screening for disruptive parameters.
This work aimed to evaluate the use of a four-point glucagon stimulation test of C-peptide effect on glucose utilization in type 1 diabetic patients using a new mathematical model. A group of 32 type 1 diabetic patients and a group of 10 healthy control subjects underwent a four-point glucagon stimulation test with blood sampling at 0, 6, 15 and 30 min after 1 mg glucagon bolus intravenous administration. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models of C-peptide effect on glucose utilization versus area under curve (AUC) were used. A two-sample t test and ANOVA with Bonferroni correction were used to test the significance of differences between parameters. A significant difference between control and patient groups regarding the coefficient of whole-body glucose utilization and AUC C-peptide/AUC glucose ratio (p ≪ 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively) was observed. The high correlation (r = 0.97) between modeled coefficient of whole-body glucose utilization and numerically calculated AUC C-peptide/AUC glucose ratio related to entire cohort indicated the stability of used method. The short-term four-point glucagon stimulation test allows the numerically calculated AUC C-peptide/AUC glucose ratio and/or the coefficient of whole-body glucose utilization calculated from model to be used to diagnostically identify type 1 diabetic patients.
AbstractThe aim of this study was to present the properties of insulin sensitivity indices formulas to justify selection of formulas to evaluate of insulin sensitivity for calculation from an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) data. Twelve of the most applicable formulae for ISI calculation were analyzed in the view of two sets of results: 1) point contrasts, calculated as the ratio of average ISI values in lean and obese groups of patients; and 2) interval contrasts, calculated as ratios of T from the two-sided t-test, evaluated as dimensionless, mutually comparable contrasts within a continuous scale. Statistical significance of individual ISIs in terms of their contrasts was evaluated by two-sided t-tests. P<0.001 was a considered statistically significance between a group of 59 healthy volunteers with BMI<25 kg/m2 and a group of 63 volunteers with BMI≥25 kg/m2 who underwent frequent OGTT sampling. To compare data of an individual subject with the standard, we recommend selecting the formulas with a high point contrast. To compare of data of several subject groups, we recommend using the formulas with a high interval contrast.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.