Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Cholecalciferol in Dogs from 2 Different Oral Formulations Using Corrective Measures to Overcome Interference from Endogenous Cholecalciferol.

The aim of the preclinical investigation was to obtain single dose pharmacokinetics in dogs from 2 different oral cholecalciferol formulations using corrective measures to overcome the interference of endogenous cholecalciferol. 6 dogs were fasted overnight and the following day received 60 000 IU dose cholecalciferol [reference, Eris®, vs. test, Sunbless®] by oral dosing. Blood samples were collected on day 0 (baseline establishment) and after dosing on day 1 up to 28 days. The serum samples were extracted using protein precipitation/solid phase extraction and analysed to determine cholecalciferol by LC-MS/MS assay with calibrators prepared from cholecalciferol free serum. Standard pharmacokinetic analysis was carried out to assess pharmacokinetic parameters. An un-paired t-test was employed for comparing statistical significance between formulations. Serum cholecalciferol concentration vs. time profiles for the 2 formulations was almost superimposable. None of the pharmacokinetic parameters showed statistically significant differences (p>0.05) between the 2 treatments. For example: Cmax (ng/mL) and AUCinf (ng.h/mL) derived after the baseline corrections were 708.65 and 38 877.18 for reference and 743.71 and 40 665.51 for test, respectively. Pharmacokinetics of cholecalciferol was comparable between reference vs. test formulations. The procedures, baseline correction and employment of cholecalciferol devoid serum, can be readily adopted in future pharmacokinetic studies in animals or humans.

Clindamycin 1% Nano-emulsion Gel Formulation for the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Results of a Randomized, Active Controlled, Multicentre, Phase IV Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris of the face is a common dermatological disease with a significant impact on the quality of life, psychosocial development as well as self-esteem of the patients. Nano emulsion gel formulations are said to have various advantages over the conventional formulations. AIM: The present study was conducted to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of clindamycin with its conventional formulation in the treatment of acne vulgaris of the face. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, active controlled, multicentric, phase IV clinical trial evaluated the treatment of patients with acne vulgaris of the face by a nano emulsion gel formulation or conventional gel formulation of clindamycin (as phosphate) 1% locally applied twice daily for 12 weeks as per random allocation. Acne lesion counts (inflammatory, non-inflammatory and total) and severity grading were carried out on the monthly scheduled visits along with tolerability assessments. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (97 males) were included for Intention to Treat analysis in the trial with 100 patients in each group. Reductions in total (69.3 vs. 51.9%; p<0.001), inflammatory (73.4 vs. 60.6%; p<0.005) and non inflammatory (65.1 vs. 43.7%; p<0.001) acne lesions were reported to be significantly greater with the nano-emulsion gel formulation as compared to the conventional gel formulation. Significantly more reduction in the mean acne severity score was noticeable with the nano-emulsion gel formulation (-1.6 ± 0.9 vs. -1.0 ± 0.8; p<0.001) than the comparator. A trend towards better safety profile of the nano emulsion gel formulation was reported. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of acne vulgaris of the face, clindamycin nano emulsion gel formulation appears to be more effective than the conventional gel formulation and is also well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene 0.1% and clindamycin 1% combination in acne vulgaris: a randomized, open label, active-controlled, multicentric, phase IV clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris is a very common skin disease with a significant detrimental effect on the quality of life of the patients. AIMS: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene and clindamycin combination with its conventional formulation in the treatment of acne vulgaris of the face. It was a prospective, randomized, open label, active-controlled, multicentric, clinical trial. METHODS: Eligible patients suffering from acne vulgaris of the face were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with a nano-emulsion gel or conventional gel formulation of adapalene 0.1% and clindamycin (as phosphate) 1% combination for 12 weeks. Total, inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts, with grading of acne severity were carried out on a monthly basis. Safety assessments were done to determine the comparative local and systemic tolerability. Two-tailed significance testing was carried out with appropriate statistical tests, and P-values < 0.05 were considered as significant. RESULTS: 209/212 patients enrolled in the study were eligible for efficacy and safety assessments in both nano-emulsion gel (118/119 patients) and conventional gel (91/93 patients) groups. Significantly better reductions in total (79.7% vs. 62.7%), inflammatory (88.7% vs. 71.4%) and noninflammatory (74.9% vs. 58.4%) lesions were reported with the nano-emulsion gel as compared to the conventional gel (P < 0.001 for all). Mean acne severity score also reduced significantly more with the nano-emulsion formulation (1.9 ± 0.9 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0; P < 0.001) than the comparator. Significantly lower incidence and lesser intensity of adverse events like local irritation (4.2% vs. 19.8%; P < 0.05) and erythema (0.8% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.05) were recorded with the nano-emulsion gel. CONCLUSIONS: The nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene and clindamycin combination appears to be more efficacious and better tolerated than the conventional formulation for the treatment of acne vulgaris in Indian patients. Further studies can elucidate the comparative treatment benefits of this nano-emulsion gel formulation.