Interaction between physical exercise and APOE gene polymorphism on cognitive function in older people

We aimed to present an overview of the literature regarding the interaction between physical exercise and APOE gene polymorphism on cognitive function, particularly in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Firstly, this review focused on the effect of the physical exercise on cognitive function, regardless of APOE gene polymorphism. Some studies have shown that a high level of cardiorespiratory fitness is associated with less neuronal damage with an improvement in memory score tests whereas other studies failed to detect any association between physical exercise and cognitive improvement either in healthy individuals or patients with AD. Taken together, standardized protocols and more longitudinal studies are required to provide a better insight into the effects of physical exercise on cognitive function. Although there is no agreement in the literature regarding the effects of physical exercise on cognitive function, it is well established that it improves social interaction and the feeling of well-being, thereby positively contributing to the quality of life of the elderly. Regarding the influence of physical exercise on cognitive function in APOE ε4 allele carriers, the data trend shows that the carriers of allele ε4 for APOE gene were more responsive to the beneficial effects of physical exercise on cognitive function compared with non-carriers. Nevertheless, studies with larger sample sizes will provide more accuracy about this relationship.

A bioequivalence study of gliclazide based on quantification by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray tandem mass spectrometry

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate, in human volunteers, the performance of one gliclazide tablet formulation (gliclazide 80 mg tablet from EMS Indústria Farmacêutica Ltda.) against two reference gliclazide tablet formulations (Diamicron 80 mg tablet from Servier do Brazil Ltda. and Diamicron 80 mg tablet from Servier (Ireland) Industries Limited).

METHODS

The study had an open, randomized, three-period crossover design with a one-week washout interval between doses. The samples were obtained over a 48-h interval after each oral administration of gliclazide. The samples were extracted from plasma using diethylether : hexane (80 : 20, v/v) and the extracts were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/ MS). Chromatography was performed isocratically using a Jones Chromatography Genesis C8 120A 4u. The method had a chromatographic run-time of 2.5 min and a calibration curve of the range of 0.02- 10 microg x ml(-1) (r(2) > 0.9993). The limit of quantification was 0.02 microg x ml(-1).

RESULTS

The geometric mean and 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the Gliclazide/Diamicron (Ireland) ratio were 588.68% (90% CI= 491.16, 705.58%) for AUClast, 423.50% (90% CI = 338.25, 530.23%) for AUCinf, and 1395.77% (90% CI= 1116.62, 1744.72%) for Cmax. The geometric mean and 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the Gliclazide/Diamicron (Brazil) ratio were 249.16% (90% CI = 207.96, 298.54%) for AUCiast, 249.16% (90% CI = 207.96 - 298.54%) for AUCinf, and 188.04% (90% CI - 151.72, 233.05%) for Cmax.

CONCLUSION

Since the 90% CI for Cmax, AUClast and AUC(0-infinity) ratios were all outside the 125% interval proposed by the US Food and Drug Administration, we concluded that the gliclazide test formulation were not bioequivalent to either reference formulation. Interestingly, the pharmacokinetic parameters such as Cmax, AUClast of both reference formulations are compatible with neither the literature nor the profile of an immediate release formulation. In addition, both reference formulations were not bioequivalent in themselves, indicating significant differences in reference product formulation.

Cyclosporine bioequivalence study: quantification using fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) and radioimmunoassay (RIA)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of study was to compare the bioavailability of 2 cyclosporine capsule formulations (100 mg; Sigmasporin Microoral from Novaquímica Divisão Nature's Plus Farmacêutica Ltd., Brazil, as test formulation and Sandimmune Neoral from Novartis Biociências S.A., Brazil, as reference formulation) in 24 healthy male volunteers.

METHODS

The study was open, randomized, with a 2-period crossover, a 1-week washout interval between doses. Blood samples were obtained over a 12-hour interval after each oral administration of cyclosporine (2 capsules of 100 mg of each formulation). Cyclosporine blood concentrations were quantified using a fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) method provided by Abbott Axsym System and Cyclo-Trac SP. Whole-blood radioimmuoassay (RIA) kit was provided by DiaSorin. These assays provided concentration-time curves for cyclosporine in blood concentration from which the following pharmacokinetic parameters were obtained: AUC(last), AUC(inf), Cmax.

RESULTS

Geometric mean and 90% confidence intervals (CI) of Microoral/Neoral as percent ratios were 94.5% (90.8-98.4%) for AUC(last), 93.8% (89.7-98.1%) for AUC(inf), and 98.1% (94.5-101.8%) for Cmax when cyclosporine was determined using FPIA and 96.1% (91.9 to 100.6%) for AUC(last), 95.2% (90.2-100.5%) for AUC(inf), and 99.4% (96.4-102.4%) for Cmax using RIA.

CONCLUSION

Since the 90% CI for Cmax, AUC(last) and AUC(inf) ratio were within the 80-125% interval proposed by US-FDA, it is concluded that Sigmasporin Microoral 100 mg capsule formulation is bioequivalent to Sandimmune Neoral 100 mg capsule formulation with regard to both rate and the extent of absorption.

Bioequivalence study of two fluconazole capsule formulations in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE

To compare the bioavailability of a fluconazole 150 mg capsule formulation from Laboratório Teuto Brasileiro Ltd., Brazil (test formulation), and Zoltec 150 mg capsule from Laboratórios Pfizer Ltd., Brazil (reference formulation), in 24 volunteers of both sexes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was conducted open with randomized 2-period crossover design and a 2-week washout period. Plasma samples were obtained over a 168-hour interval. Fluconazole concentrations were analyzed by combined reversed-phase liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) with positive ion electrospray ionization using selected ion monitoring method. From the fluconazole plasma concentration vs. time curves the following pharmacokinetic parameters were obtained: AUC(last), AUC(0-inf) and C(max).

RESULTS

Geometric mean of fluconazole/Zoltec 150 mg individual percent ratio was 102.6% for AUC(last), 102.2% for AUC(0-inf) and 109.4% for C(max). The 90% confidence intervals were 97.3-108.2%, 97.0-107.8%, and 103.1-116.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Since the 90% CI for both Cmax, AUC(last) and AUC(0-inf) were within the 80-125% interval proposed by the Food and Drug Administration, it was concluded that fluconazole 150 mg capsule was bioequivalent to Zoltec 150 mg, according to both the rate and extent of absorption.

Amlodipine bioequivalence study: quantification by liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry

OBJECTIVE

To assess the bioequivalence of two amlodipine tablet formulations (Amlodipine 5 mg tablet from Merck S.A. Indústrias Químicas, Brazil as test formulation and Norvasc 5 mg tablet from Laboratórios Pfizer Ltd., Brazil as reference formulation) in 24 healthy volunteers of both sexes.

METHODS

The study was conducted using an open, randomized two-period crossover design with a 4-week washout interval. Plasma samples were obtained over a 144 h period. Plasma amlodipine concentrations were analyzed by combined liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS) with positive ion electrospray ionization using multiple reaction monitoring (MRM). From the amlodipine plasma concentration vs time curves, the following pharmacokinetic parameters were obtained: AUC(last), AUC(0-inf) and C(max). The statistical interval proposed was 80-125% according to the US Food and Drug Administration Agency.

RESULTS

The limit of quantification was 0.1 ng/ml for plasma amlodipine analysis. The geometric mean and the 90% confidence interval (CI) test/reference ratios were 101.2 (92.9-110.2%) for AUC(last), 99.6 (91.5-108.4%) for AUC(0-inf) and 98.5 (89.0-109.1%) for C(max).

CONCLUSION

Since the 90% CI for AUC(last), AUC(0-inf) and C(max) ratios were within in the 80-125% interval proposed by the US FDA, it was concluded that Amlodipine 5 mg tablet (test formulation) was bioequivalent to Norvasc 5 mg tablet, in terms of both rate and extent of absorption.