Search

Effervescent formulation helps in faster and better absorption of drugs, especially those that are rapidly soluble in water. However, these tablets require special packaging in order to prevent them from absorbing moisture, hence increasing cost. We compared an effervescent tablet prepared using an in-house developed method (multi-layer tablet with acid and base part separated by an inert layer) to a European effervescent tablet (Efferalgan®) in a single-center, randomized cross-over study among twelve healthy volunteers. Blood samples were collected for 8 h and analyzed for paracetamol concentration using HPLC. Our results showed that both the products have similar pharmacokinetic profiles with no significant difference observed for C last , T half , K elim , and MRT (p-value > 0.05). Moreover, to assess bioequivalence we did not find any significant difference (p-value > 0.05) in AUC (27.12 ± 6.02 vs. 27.29 ± 2.64 µg.h/ml), C max (7.42 ± 1.06 vs. 7.83 ± 1.19 µg/ml) and t max (0.85 ± 0.22 vs. 0.83 ± 0.25 h). The TR ratios for AUC, C max , and t max were 0.99, 0.95, and 1.02 respectively, and were all within the specified FDA limits i.e., 0.8-1.25. We found our test tablet to be bioequivalent to that of Efferalgan®., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Treatment cost and high prevalence of Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) is a very challenging issue globally. Due to this reason; current study was conducted to determine pharmaco-economy of conventional and non-conventional treatments for the management of PCOS., Methods: Prospective Cross-Sectional study was conducted in the metropolitan city of Karachi from January - December 2019. Primary data of 200 PCOS patients were collected from different hospitals and clinics. An instrument was used to collect data pertaining to the direct and indirect cost associated with the disease management. Collected data was analyzed by the tools for cost analysis and software called Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) - 22., Results: In Cost Minimization Analysis (CMA); Allopathic treatment [Mean cost/month: PKR:4479.32 ± 350.95 (USD:27.46 ± 2.15)], Herbal treatment [Mean cost/month: PKR:1527.78 ± 78.15 (USD:9.37 ± 0.48)], Combination treatment [Mean cost/month: PKR:2803.09 ± 654.22 (USD:17.18 ± 4.01)], and Homoeopathic treatment [Mean cost/month: PKR:976.95 ± 46.19 (USD:5.99 ± 0.28)]. Incremental cost/month for Allopathic treatment is 358%, Herbal treatment is 56%, Combination treatment is 187%. In Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA); Allopathic treatment (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/month: 1334.24), Herbal treatment (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/month: 936.41), Combination treatment (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/month: 1017.09). Due to lowest cost of Homeopathic treatment, cost of Homeopathic treatment was considered as a threshold value. In-direct cost/month of Allopathic treatment is PKR:593.33 ± 24.00 (USD:3.64 ± 0.15), Herbal treatment is PKR:307.84 ± 26.69 (USD:1.89 ± 0.16), Combination treatment is PKR:409.09 ± 45.63 (USD:2.51 ± 0.28) and Homoeopathic treatment is PKR:300.00 ± 26.39 (USD:1.84 ± 0.16)., Conclusion: The most cost-effective is treatment is Homeopathic; Herbal treatment is second most cost-effective option for the treatment of PCOS. Lowest direct and indirect costs and short treatment duration collaboratively lessen the %incremental cost per year and incremental cost effectiveness ratio per year., (© 2024. The Author(s).)