Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Comparative evaluation of the biopharmaceutical and chemical equivalence of some commercially available brands of ciprofloxacin hydrochloride tablets

O A Adegbolagun , O A Olalade, S E Osumah

Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Ibadan, Ibadan;

For correspondence:-  O Adegbolagun   Email: duplag03@yahoo.com

Published: 16 September 2007

Citation: Adegbolagun OA, Olalade OA, Osumah SE. Comparative evaluation of the biopharmaceutical and chemical equivalence of some commercially available brands of ciprofloxacin hydrochloride tablets. Trop J Pharm Res 2007; 6(3):737-745 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v6i3.2

© 2007 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

 

Purpose: This study was undertaken with the objective of evaluating the biopharmaceutical equivalency of ten brands of ciprofloxacin tablets and the chemical equivalency with the use of an analytical method, which will be easy to use, accurate, reproducible, simple, and inexpensive.
Method: The biopharmaceutical and chemical equivalence of ten brands of ciprofloxacin hydrochloride tablets were assessed through the evaluation of the uniformity of weight, friability test, hardness, disintegration test, dissolution rate, thin layer chromatography and non-aqueous titration procedure with the use of crystal violet solution indicator.
Result: All the brands complied with the official specification for uniformity of weight and friability test, while one of the brands failed the disintegration test. The dissolution rate profile revealed that four of the brands did not attain 70% dissolution throughout the period of the determination, while the other brands had above 70% dissolution at less than 45minutes. The non-aqueous titrimetric procedure showed that the excipients did not affect the procedure; with seven brands having values within the range specified in the USP, while the remaining three brands gave lower values.
Conclusion: Six of the brands evaluated in this study could be regarded as being biopharmaceutically and chemically equivalent, while a particular brand is obviously a fake product. The non-aqueous titrimetric procedure used in this study is simple, inexpensive, and easy to use and could be used in routine monitoring of the quality of ciprofloxacin HCl tablets, especially in the absence of high technology equipments that are not easily available in most developing countries.
 

Keywords: : Ciprofloxacin hydrochloride tablets, non-aqueous titration, chemical equivalence, biopharmaceutical equivalence

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.6 (2023)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 49 (2023)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2006; 5: 
1,   2
2005; 4: 
1,   2
2004; 3: 
1
2003; 2: 
1,   2
2002; 1: 
1,   2

News Updates