Comparative In-vitro Evaluation of Different Captopril Tablet Brands Commercially Available in Sindh, Pakistan
Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International,
Pharmaceutical products of standard quality are very important in appropriate management of diseases. However, substandard drugs are failing to achieve the therapeutic outcomes. In this study, six brands of Captopril tables having two strengths (three brands of 50 mg, and three brands of 25 mg), were collected from local pharmacies of Sindh. Standards of United States of Pharmacopeia (USP) were used for comparison of Captopril brands. Wide ranges of physicochemical standard quality control tests of USP were performed and results were recorded. All six brands of captopril tablets met the standard of aesthetic test, and weight uniformity test, diameter test and thickness test and disintegration test in which dissolved within fifteen minutes. Four brands of captopril tablet meet the standard of hardness test, whereas two brands fails to meet the standard with average hardness in brand C25-2 (3.05 ± 0.32), and brand C25-3 (2.28 ± 0.40). Five brands of captopril tablet meet the standard of friability test whereas one brand C25-3 fail to meet the standard with average loss of 6.22%. All six brands of captopril tablet meet the standard of dissolution test and dissolved not < 80% in 20 minutes. In last all six brands of captopril tablet meet the standard of assay test and contain the captopril within 90-110%. It was concluded that all brands of Captopril tablets meet the standard of USP and are therapeutically equivalent, so Physicians can prescribe them cost-effectively and interchangeably.
- Pharmaceutical products
How to Cite
Stanaway JD, Afshin A, Gakidou E, Lim SS, Abate D, Abate KH, et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet. 2018;392(10159): 1923-94.
Lawes CM, Vander Hoorn S, Rodgers A. Global burden of blood-pressure-related disease, 2001. The Lancet. 2008; 371(9623):1513-18.
Rapsomaniki E, Timmis A, George J, Pujades-Rodriguez M, Shah AD, Denaxas S, et al. Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: Lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and age-specific associations in 1• 25 million people. The Lancet. 2014;383(9932):1899-911.
Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE, Collins KJ, Dennison-Himmelfarb C, et al. Guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am College of Cardiology. 2017;71(19): 127-248.
Prospective Studies Collaboration. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: A meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. The Lancet. 2002: 360(9349):1903-13.
Whelton PK, He J, Muntner P. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in North America, North Africa and Asia. J Human Hypertension. 2004:18(8):545-41.
Okrainec K, Banerjee DK, Eisenberg MJ. Coronary artery disease in the developing world. American Heart J. 2004;148(1):7-15.
Hambrecht R, Wolf A, Gielen S, Linke A, Hofer J, Erbs S, et al. Effect of exercise on coronary endothelial function in patients with coronary artery disease. New England J Medicine. 2000;342(7):454-60.
Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, Brunner HR, Ekman S, Hansson L, et al. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. The Lancet. 2004;363(9426):2022-31.
Abstract View: 233 times
PDF Download: 185 times