DrugLib.com — Drug Information Portal

Rx drug information, pharmaceutical research, clinical trials, news, and more



Clinical pharmacological equivalence of a novel FCH-free GTN spray with low ethanol content vs a FCH-containing GTN spray.

Author(s): de Mey C, Erb K, Zimmermann T, Mutschler H, Blume H, Belz GG

Affiliation(s): Centre for Cardiovascular Pharmacology, Wiesbaden, Germany.

Publication date & source: 1995, Eur J Clin Pharmacol., 47(5):437-43.

Publication type: Clinical Trial; Randomized Controlled Trial

The overall therapeutic equivalence of a fluorochlorohydrocarbon (FCH)-free glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) pump spray with a low ethanol content (TL) was investigated relative to an FCH-containing GTN spray (Nitrolingual; R), in terms of: (1) pharmacokinetic bioavailability, (2) pharmacodynamic responses as assessed by digital plethysmography (DPG), and (3) clinical perception upon application. Pharmacokinetically, the time courses of the plasma concentrations of GTN and its dinitrate metabolites, 1,2- and 1,3-GDN, subsequent to the sublingual administration of 0.8 mg GTN showed somewhat lower bioavailability of GTN and its metabolites than to the reference. Pharmacodynamically, the changes in the DPG signals after the application of 0.8 mg GTN with TL were biostatistically equivalent with R (estimated ratio TL/R for the maximum decrease of the ratio between the systolic a wave and c incisure: 0.98; 90% CI: 0.84-1.14; and for the average decrease of the c: a ratio: 0.97; 90% CI: 0.80-1.16). The time of occurrence of the maximum effect of TL was not significantly different from that of R (estimated difference TL-R: -2.25 min; 95% CI:-9.5 min to 2 min). In contrast, after the administration of an FCH-free GTN spray with a higher ethanol content (TH, active control), the effect had a slightly earlier onset (TH-R: -6 min, 95% CI:-9.5 to -2 min) and there was a higher average response (TH/R: 1.12: 90% CI: 0.95 to 1.34). However, TH was consistently judged to cause an extremely unpleasant burning sensation in the mouth and thus was perceived as distinctly different from R. In contrast, TL was well tolerated and could not be distinguished from R.

Page last updated: 2006-01-31

-- advertisement -- The American Red Cross
 
Home | About Us | Contact Us | Site usage policy | Privacy policy

All Rights reserved - Copyright DrugLib.com, 2006-2017