4 resultados para acyclovir
em Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo
Resumo:
A derivative spectrophotometric method was validated for quzintification of acyclovir in poly (n-butylcyanoacrylate) (PBCA) nanoparticles. Specificity, linearity. precision, accuracy, recovery. detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) Inuits were established for method validation. First-derivative it 295.2 nm eliminated interferences from nanoparticle ingredients and presented linearity for acyclovir concentrations ranging front 1.25 to 40.0 mu g/mL. (r = 0.9999). Precision and accuracy data demonstrated good reproducibility. Recovery ranged from 99.3 to 101.2. LOD) was 0.08 mu g/mL and LOQ. 0.25 mu g/mL. Thus. the proposed method proved to be easy. low cost. and accurate, and therefore, an useful alternative to quantify acyclovir in nanoparticles.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES: Acute retinal necrosis is a rapidly progressive and devastating viral retinitis caused by the herpesvirus family. Systemic acyclovir is the treatment of choice; however, the progression of retinal lesions ceases approximately 2 days after treatment initiation. An intravitreal injection of acyclovir may be used an adjuvant therapy during the first 2 days of treatment when systemically administered acyclovir has not reached therapeutic levels in the retina. The aims of this study were to determine the pharmacokinetic profile of acyclovir in the rabbit vitreous after intravitreal injection and the functional effects of acyclovir in the rabbit retina. METHODS: Acyclovir (Acyclovir; Bedford Laboratories, Bedford, OH, USA) 1 mg in 0.1 mL was injected into the right eye vitreous of 32 New Zealand white rabbits, and 0.1 mL sterile saline solution was injected into the left eye as a control. The animals were sacrificed after 2, 9, 14, or 28 days. The eyes were enucleated, and the vitreous was removed. The half-life of acyclovir was determined using high-performance liquid chromatography. Electroretinograms were recorded on days 2, 9, 14, and 28 in the eight animals that were sacrificed 28 days after injection according to a modified protocol of the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. RESULTS: Acyclovir rapidly decayed in the vitreous within the first two days after treatment and remained at low levels from day 9 onward. The eyes that were injected with acyclovir did not present any electroretinographic changes compared with the control eyes. CONCLUSIONS: The vitreous half-life of acyclovir is short, and the electrophysiological findings suggest that the intravitreal delivery of 1 mg acyclovir is safe and well tolerated by the rabbit retina.
Resumo:
A derivative spectrophotometric method was validated for quantification of acyclovir in poly (n-butylcyanoacrylate) (PBCA) nanoparticles. Specificity, linearity, precision, accuracy, recovery, detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) limits were established for method validation. First-derivative at 295.2 nm eliminated interferences from nanoparticle ingredients and presented linearity for acyclovir concentrations ranging from 1.25 to 40.0 µg/mL (r = 0.9999). Precision and accuracy data demonstrated good reproducibility. Recovery ranged from 99.3 to 101.2. LOD was 0.08 µg/mL and LOQ, 0.25 µg/mL. Thus, the proposed method proved to be easy, low cost, and accurate, and therefore, an useful alternative to quantify acyclovir in nanoparticles.
Resumo:
Pharmaceutical equivalence is an important step towards the confirmation of similarity and Interchangeability among pharmaceutical products, particularly regarding those that win not be tested for bioequivalence. The aim of this paper is to compare traditional difference testing to two one-side equivalence tests in the assessment of pharmaceutical equivalence, by means of equivalence studies between similar, generic and reference products of acyclovir cream, atropine sulfate injection, meropenem for injection, and metronidazole injection. All tests were performed in accordance with the Brazilian Pharmacopeia or the United States Pharmacopeia. All four possible combinations of results arise in these comparisons of difference testing and equivalence testing. Most of the former did not show significant difference, whereas the latter presented similarity. We concluded that equivalence testing is more appropriate than difference testing, what can make it a useful tool to assess pharmaceutical equivalence in products that will not be tested for bioequivalence.