Atorvastatin before percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Atorvastatin is widely recommended for long-term secondary prevention in STEMI patients with no contraindication. Although high-dose atorvastatin has been shown to reduce important patient outcomes such as MACE, there is still doubt that high-dose atorvastatin could have the same protective effect in patients undergoing PCI in the short and long term. We searched the following electronic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central considering studies that enrolled adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of STEMI or NSTEMI undergoing PCI. The intervention must have been atorvastatin alone compared to a placebo, standard care, or a different atorvastatin dose. A total of (n = 11) studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Information on (N = 5,399) patients was available; 2,654 were assigned to receive high-dose atorvastatin therapy, and 2,745 comprised the control group. High-dose atorvastatin pre-loading significantly reduced MACE at one month of follow-up (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.67-0.91; p = 0.014) in both STEMI and NSTEMI. All-cause mortality was reduced in patients with STEMI (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.10-0.81; p = 0.029). The quality of the body of evidence was rated overall as moderate. Patients presenting with STEMI or NSTEMI benefit from high-dose atorvastatin pre-loading before PCI by reducing MACE at 30 days. The use of high-dose atorvastatin in STEMI patients reduced all-cause mortality. The beneficial effects of atorvastatin pre-loading are limited to 30 days post-PCI.

Bioequivalence of single 100-mg doses of two oral formulations of topiramate: an open-label, randomized-sequence, two-period crossover study in healthy adult male Mexican volunteers.

BACKGROUND: The proprietary form of topiramate is indicated in Mexico as an antiepileptic agent and in the prophylaxis of migraine headaches. However, before generic topiramate is placed on the market, pharmacokinetic studies investigating the bioequivalence of generic and branded formulations are needed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the bioequivalence and tolerability of a generic (test) and a branded (reference) formulation of topiramate 100 mg in healthy Mexican volunteers. METHODS: This open-label, randomized-sequence, 2-period crossover study was conducted at Ipharma SA de CV, Monterrey, Mexico. Eligible subjects were healthy male Mexican volunteers aged 18 to 45 years. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of the test or reference formulation, followed by a 3-week washout period and administration of the alternate formulation. Doses were administered after a 12-hour overnight fast. For analysis of pharmacokinetic properties, including C(max), AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-infinity), blood samples were obtained over a 144-hour period after dosing. The formulations were to be considered bioequivalent if calculations of a 90% CI for the ratio of the means of the measures for the test and reference formulations fell within bioequivalence limits, 80% to 125%, for logarithmic (log) transformation of C(max) and AUC, and if two 1-sided t tests showed P < 0.05. Tolerability was assessed using vital sign measurement (blood pressure, body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rate), laboratory analysis (hematology, blood biochemistry, hepatic function, and urinalysis), and subject interview. RESULTS: Twenty-eight men (mean age, 22.21 years [range, 18-28 years]; mean weight, 75.04 kg [range, 62-96 kg]; mean height, 177 cm [range, 163-192 cm]) were enrolled in this study, and 28 (14 each randomized to receive the test or reference formulation first) completed it. No period or sequence effects were observed. The 90% CIs for the log-transformed C(max), AUC(0-t) and AUC(0-infinity) were 94.70 to 112.05, 98.88 to 105.16, and 98.80 to 105.28, respectively (all, P < 0.05). No adverse events were reported by the volunteers or found on clinical laboratory testing during the study. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find any statistically significant differences in C(max) or AUC values between the test and reference formulations of oral topiramate 100 mg in this population of healthy adult male Mexican volunteers. On that basis, and according to both the rate and extent of absorption, the test and reference formulations met the regulatory criteria for bioequivalence. Both formulations were well tolerated.

Bioavailability of two oral formulations of loratadine 20 mg with concomitant ketoconazole: an open-label, randomized, two-period crossover comparison in healthy Mexican adult volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Loratadine is a long-acting antihistamine with selective peripheral histamine H(1)-receptor antagonistic activity and fewer sedative effects compared with conventional antihistamines, and is widely used in Mexico. Although several generic formulations of loratadine are available in Mexico, based on a literature search, information concerning the bioavailability of each formulation in the Mexican population is not available. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the bioavailability and tolerability of 2 oral formulations of loratadine 20 mg (two 10-mg tablets) used in Mexico: Sensibit (test formulation; Laboratorios Liomont S.A. de C.V., Mexico City, Mexico) and Clarityne (reference formulation; Schering-Plough S.A. de C.V., Mexico City, Mexico) in healthy volunteers. METHODS: This open-label, randomized, 2-period crossover study was conducted at Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico. Eligible subjects were healthy male Mexican volunteers aged > or=18 years. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive a single 20-mg dose (two 10-mg tablets) of the test or reference formulation, followed by a 2-week washout period, followed by the same dose of the alternate formulation. A 400-mg dose of ketoconazole (2 doses in 24 hours) was administered to each subject before the administration of each formulation, and a 200-mg dose of ketoconazole was given together with each formulation (ie, a total of 600 mg of ketoconazole was administered). Doses were administered after a 12-hour overnight fast. For analysis of pharmacokinetic properties, including C(maX), AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-infinity), blood samples were drawn at 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 5, 8, 12, 16, and 22 hours after dosing. The formulations were considered bioequivalent if the geometric mean ratios of C(maX) and AUC were within the predetermined equivalence range of 80% to 125%. Tolerability was assessed by monitoring vital signs and subject interview regarding the potential presence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Thirty-two subjects were enrolled in the study (mean age, 22 years [range, 18-28 years]; mean weight, 68.9 kg [range, 58-79 kg]; mean height, 170.8 cm [range, 158-183 cm]). Sixteen subjects received the test formulation first. No period or sequence effect was observed. The 90% CIs for the corresponding ratios of CmaX, AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-infinity) were 81.43% to 106.01%, 83.12% to 100.23%, and 84.06% to 101.10% (all, P < 0.05), meeting the predetermined criteria for bioequivalence. Similar results were found for data without a logarithmic transformation. No AEs were reported throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study in healthy Mexican volunteers, a single, 20-mg dose of the test formulation of loratadine was found to be bioequivalent to that of the reference formulation based on the rate and extent of absorption when concomitantly administered with ketoconazole. Both formulations were well tolerated.

Bioavailability of two oral formulations of azithromycin 500 mg: a randomized, open-label, two-period crossover comparison in healthy Mexican adult subjects.

BACKGROUND: Azithromycin is related to erythromycin but is more active against gram-negative bacteria and less active against streptococci and staphylococci compared with erythromycin. For these reasons, and because of convenience of dosing (QD for 3 days), azithromycin is widely used in Mexico. Although several generic formulations of azithromycin are available in Mexico, information concerning the bioavailability of each formulation in the Mexican population is not available. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the bioavailability and tolerability of 2 oral formulations of azithromycin 500 mg used in Mexico: Macrozit (trademark of Laboratorios Liomont, S.A. de C.V., Mexico City, Mexico; test formulation) and Azitrocin (trademark of Pfizer, S.A. de C.V., Mexico City, Mexico; reference formulation). METHODS: This 2 x 2, crossover, randomized, open-label study was conducted at the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Universidad Autóma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico. Eligible subjects were healthy volunteers of either sex and with the following characteristics: age > or =19 to 25 years, weight 54 to 77 kg, and height 159 to 177 cm. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive Macrozit followed by Azitrocin, or vice versa, with a 3-week washout period between doses. After a 12-hour (overnight) fast, subjects received a single, 500-mg dose of each formulation. For analysis of pharmacokinetic properties, including C(max), AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-infinity), blood samples were drawn at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, 96, and 120 hours after dosing. The formulations were considered bioequivalent if the logarithm (ln)-transformed ratios of C(max) and AUC were within the predetermined equivalence range of 80% to 125% and if P < or = 0.05 for the 90% CIs. Tolerability was assessed by monitoring and subject interview regarding the potential presence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Twenty-eight subjects were enrolled in the study; 27 completed it (14 men, 13 women; mean age, 21.7 years). Fourteen subjects received the test formulation first. No period or sequence effect was observed. The 90% CIs for the corresponding ratios of C(max), AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-infinity) were 80.67 to 107.21, 91.39 to 107.59, and 90.61 to 106.19 (all, P < 0.05). Similar results were found for data without a logarithmic transformation. No AEs were found throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study in healthy Mexican volunteers, a single, 500-mg dose of Macrozit was found to be bioequivalent to that of Azitrocin based on the rate and extent of absorption. Both formulations were well tolerated.