Journal
JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND BIOMEDICAL ANALYSIS
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 1319-1329Publisher
PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0731-7085(02)00453-3
Keywords
lomefloxacin; HPTLC; urinary excretion; tablet formulations; bioequivalence
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The present study describes development of a sensitive and simple HPTLC method for estimation of lomefloxacin (LMF) in human urine. The drug was extracted using chloroform after adjusting the pH of urine to 7.0. Chloroform extract was spotted on silica gel 60 F-254 TLC plate and was developed in a mixture of n-butanol-methanol-ethyl acetate-6 M ammonia (4:2:3:2, v/v/v/v) as the mobile phase and scanned at 290 rim. The peak for LMF resolved at R-F of 0.40+/-0.02. The method was validated in terms of linearity (50-600 mug/ml), precision, specificity and accuracy. The limit of detection and limit of quantification for LMF in urine were found to be 20 and 50 mug/ml, respectively. The average recovery of LMF from urine was 91.93%. The proposed method was applied to generate urinary excretion data for LMF after administration of two market LMF tablet formulations (400 mg, Formulation R and Formulation T) to six healthy human volunteers in a two-treatment, open, crossover design. Various pharmacokinetic parameters like peak excretion rate ((dAU/dt)(max)), time for peak excretion rate (t(max)), AUC(0-48), AUC(0-infinity) cumulative amount and % cumulative amount of LMF excreted, elimination half-life (t(1/2)), terminal elimination rate constant (k(el)) and overall elimination rate constant (K), were calculated for both the formulations. The average cumulative amounts of LMF excreted in urine after administration of Formulation R and Formulation T were found to be 321.60 mg (80.40% of dose) and 296.51 mg (74.13% of dose), respectively. The urinary excretion profiles of LMF upto 48 h for both the formulations were found to be similar. Statistical comparison (90% confidence intervals of ratio) of various pharmacokinetic parameters of Formulation T with that of Formulation R revealed that Formulation T is bioequivalent with Formulation R. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available