The bioavailability of a new losartan preparation (2-butyl-4-chloro-1-[p-(o-1H-tetrazol-5-ylphenyl)benzyl]imidazole-5-methanol monopotassium salt, CAS 114798-26-4) was compared with the reference preparation of the drug in 24 healthy male volunteers, aged between 19 and 32. The open, randomized, single-blind two-sequence, two-period crossover study design was performed. Under fasting conditions, each subject received a single oral dose of 100 mg losartan as a test or reference formulation. The plasma concentrations of losartan and its active metabolite were analyzed by a rapid and sensitive HPLC method with UV detection. The pharmacokinetic parameters included AUC0-36h, AUC0-infinity, Cmax, t1/2, and Ke. Values of AUC0-infinity demonstrate nearly identical bioavailability of losartan from the examined formulations. The AUC0-infinity of losartan was 2019.92+/-1002.90 and 2028.58+/-837.45 ng x h/ml for the test and reference formulation, respectively. The AUC0-infinity of the metabolite was 10851.52+/-4438.66 and 11041.18 +/-5015.81 ng x h/ml for test and reference formulation, respectively. The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of losartan was 745.94+/-419.75 ng/ml for the test and 745.74+/-329.99 ng/ml for the reference product and the Cmax of the metabolite was 1805.77+/-765.39 and 1606.22 +/-977.22 ng/ml for the test and reference product, respectively. No statistical differences were observed for Cmax and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve for both losartan and its active metabolite. 90 % confidence limits calculated for Cmax and AUC from zero to infinity (AUC0-infinity) of losartan and its metabolite were included in the bioequivalence range (0.8-1.25 for AUC). This study shows that the test formulation is bioequivalent to the reference formulation for losartan and its main active metabolite.

The bioavailability of drotaverine (CAS 14009-24-6) was investigated after oral administration of a drotaverine capsule preparation (20 mg Droxa mite) and compared to that of a reference tablet preparation. The preparations were investigated in 23 healthy volunteers, aged between 20 and 27 years, according to a randomised two-way, cross-over design in the fasted state. Blood samples for determination of drotaverine plasma concentrations were collected at pre-defined time points up to 30 h following drug administration. A washout period of two weeks separated both treatment periods. Drotaverine plasma concentrations were determined by means of a validated HPLC method (UV detector, imipramine HCl salt as an internal standard). The limit of detection was 6 ng/ml. Values of 1593.92 +/- 949.70 ng x h/l (95% confidence interval (CI): 1183.20-2004.60) for the test and 1705.48 +/- 737.78 ng x h/l (95% CI: 1386.40-2024.50) for the reference preparation AUC(0-infinity) demonstrate a nearly identical extent of drug absorption. Maximum concentrations--Cmax of 121.89 +/- 37.03 ng/ml (95% CI: 104.05-139.80) and 121.85 +/- 37.97 ng/ml (95% CI: 107.09-135.74) and time to reach maximum plasma concentration--Tmax of 1.29 +/- 0.42 h (95% CI: 1.11-1.48) and 1.14 +/- 0.34 h (95% CI: 0.99-1.29) achieved for the test and reference preparations did not differ significantly. The relative bioavailability (AUC(0-infinity) ratio test/reference) and Cmax ratio test/reference were 103.15% (90% CI: 81.68-124.60) and 103.74% (90% CI: 94.10-113.38), respectively. AUC was calculated using two different methods. There were no significant differences between the obtained values. Since the 90% CI for both, AUC and Cmax ratios were within the 80-125% interval proposed by the European Agency for the Evalution of Medicinal Products (CPMP) and the Food and Drug Administration, it is concluded that the new drotaverine capsule formulation is therapeutically equivalent to the conventional formulation for both, the extent and the rate of absorption after single dose administration in healthy volunteers.

No abstract

The phototoxicity of two new porphyrin photosensitizers, diarginine diprotoporphyrinate (PP(Arg)2) and N,N-diphenylalanyl protoporphyrin (PP(Phe)2), and the synergistic effect of 5-methoxyposralen (5-MOP) have been studied in comparison with that of protoporphyrin IX (PPIX). Under ultraviolet-A (UV-A) irradiation (h = 365 nm), the phototoxicity of the porphyrins toward cultured human fibroblasts and keratinocytes decreases in the order: PPIX > PP(Arg)z > PP(Phe)> A synergistic effect of 5-MOP on the phototoxicity of PPIX, PP(Arg), and PP(Phe)2 has been observed. The combination of PPIX, PP(Arg)2 and PP(Phe)2 with 0.1-0.5 pA4 5-MOP significantly potentiates the phototoxicity of the three porphyrins. The most effective potentiation was observed with the water-soluble PP(Arg)z and 5-MOP concentrations lower than 0.75 pM. Above this 5-MOP concentration this potentiation is abolished. The intracellular concentration of PPIX and PP(Phe)2 is independent of the presence of 5-MOP. On the other hand, the intracellular content of PP(Arg)2 is decreased in a concentration-dependent manner by the psoralen. Illumination with red light, not absorbed by 5-MOP, leads to a weak potentiation of the PP(Arg), phototoxic effect in the presence of !?-MOP, suggesting that dark interaction of 5-MOP with cell membranes aggravated by porphyrin photosensitization is involved in the observed phenomena. The results are tentatively explained by differences in hydrophobicity and molecular structures of the examined photosensitizers. PPIX, which is barely soluble in water, Abbreviations: DMEM, Dulbecco's modified minimum essential medium;EMEM, Eagle's minimum essential medium with Earle's salts; FCS, fetal calf serum; HBSS, Hank's buffered saline solution: ID,,, dose inhibiting 50% of membrane integrity; 5-MOP, 5-methoxypsoralen; NR, neutral red; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline solution; PDT, photodynamic therapy; PP(Arg),, diarginine diprotoporphyrinate; PPIX, protoporphyrin IX, PP(Phe),, N,N-diphenylalanyl protoporphyrin; PUVA, psoralens + ultraviolet-A, UV-A, ultraviolet-A. 0 2004 American Society for Photobiology 003 1 -8655/04 $5.00+0.00 has a significantly higher affinity for cell membranes and simultaneously exerts a stronger phototoxic effect than PP(Arg)2 whose solubility in water is high. On the other hand, the weak phototoxicity of PP(Phe)2 could be explained by the steric hindrance brought by the phenylalanyl substituents on the pyrrole ring. The loss in the PP(ArgI2 cell content probably explains the inhibition of the synergistic effect of 5-MOP on the PP(Arg)t phototoxicity at high 5-MOP concentration. This study suggests that PP(Arg), in combination with 5-MOP might reveal a strong phototoxic effect when applied to skin cancer treatment.

As SFx is linearly related to plasma propofol concentration, this index may be used to measure anaesthetic effect during propofol anaesthesia. The results of this clinical trial are consistent with a previous computer-simulated opioid-propofol model with regard to intraoperative and recovery variables, although the recovery occurred at different propofol concentration and SFx values.