Liquid chromatographic-mass spectrometric method for determination of drug content uniformity of two commonly used dermatology medications in a split-tablet dosage form

Purpose: To develop and validate a simple, efficient and reliable Liquid chromatographic-mass spectrometric (LC-MS/MS) method for the quantitative determination of two dermatological drugs, Lamisil® (terbinafine) and Proscar® (finasteride), in split tablet dosage form. Methods: Thirty tablets each of the 2 studied medications were randomly selected. Tablets were weighed and divided into 3 groups. Ten tablets of each drug were kept intact, another group of 10 tablets were manually split into halves using a tablet cutter and weighed with an analytical balance; a third group were split into quarters and weighed. All intact and split tablets were individually dissolved in a water: methanol mixture (4:1), sonicated, filtered and further diluted with mobile phase. Optimal chromatographic separation and mass spectrometric detection were achieved using an Agilent 1200 HPLC system coupled with an Agilent 6410 triple quadrupole mass spectrometer. Analytes were eluted through an Agilent eclipse plus C8 analytical column (150 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm) with a mobile phase composed of solvent A (water) containing 0.1% formic acid and 5mM ammonium formate pH 7.5, and solvent B (acetonitrile mixed with water in a ratio A:B 55:45) at a flow rate of 0.8 mL min-1 with a total run time of 12 min. Mass spectrometric detection was carried out using positive ionization mode with analyte quantitation monitored by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. Results: The proposed analytical method proved to be specific, robust and adequately sensitive. The results showed a good linear fit over the concentration range of 20 - 100 ng mL-1 for both analytes, with a correlation coefficient (r2) ≥ 0.999 and 0.998 for finasteride and terbinafine, respectively. Following tablet splitting, the drug content of the split tablets fell outside of the proxy USP specification for at least 14 halves (70 %) and 34 quarters (85 %) of FIN, as well as 16 halves (80 %) and 37 quarters (92.5 %) of TBN. Mean weight loss, after splitting, was 0.58 and 2.22 % for FIN half- and quarter tablets, respectively, and 3.96 and 4.09 % for TBN half- and quarter tablets,respectively. Conclusion: The proposed LC-MS/MS method has successfully been used to provide precise drug content uniformity of split tablets of FIN and TBN. Unequal distribution of the drug on the split tablets is indicated by the high standard deviation beyond the accepted value. Hence, it is recommended not to split non-scored tablets especially, for those medications with significant toxicity

Efficacy and Safety of Orally Administered Intravenous Midazolam Versus a Commercially Prepared Syrup

Background: Among different categories of sedative agents, benzodiazepines have been prescribed for more than three decades to patients of all ages. The effective and predictable sedative and amnestic effects of benzodiazepines support their use in pediatric patients. Midazolam is one of the most extensively used benzodiazepines in this age group. Oral form of drug is the best accepted route of administration in children. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a commercially midazolam syrup versus orally administered IV midazolam in uncooperative dental patients. Second objective was to determine whether differences concerning sedation success can be explained by child‘s behavioral problems and dental fear. Patients and Methods: Eighty eight uncooperative dental patients (Frankl Scales 1,2) aged 3 to 6 years, and ASA I participated in this double blind, parallel randomized, controlled clinical trial. Midazolam was administered in a dose of 0.5 mg/kg for children under the age 5 and 0.2 mg/kg in patients over 5 years of age. Physiologic parameters including heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and blood pressure were recorded. Behavior assessment was conducted throughout the course of treatment using Houpt Sedation Rating Scale and at critical moments of treatment (injection and cavity preparation) by North Carolina Scale. Dental fear and behavioral problems were evaluated using Child Fear Schedule Survey-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS), and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Independent t-test, Chi-Square, and Pearson correlation were used for statistical analysis. Results: Acceptable overall sedation ratings were observed in 90% and 86% of syrup and IV/Oral group respectively; Chi-Square P = 0.5. Other domains of Houpt Scale including: sleep, crying and movement were also not significantly different between groups. Physiological parameters remained in normal limits during study without significant difference between groups. Conclusions: “Orally administered IV midazolam” preparation can be used as an alternative for commercially midazolam syrup.