In vitro disintegration and dissolution studies of once-weekly copies of alendronate sodium tablets (70 mg) and in vivo implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vitro disintegration and dissolution of 26 alendronic acid tablets (70 mg) on the market in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom compared to the branded product (Fosamax). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The disintegration and dissolution times were determined using the methods described in the United States Pharmacopeia 30 (USP 30). The disintegration of four orally disintegrating tablets (non-bisphosphonates) and branded film-coated risedronate sodium tablets were included for comparison. RESULTS: The mean disintegration times of the alendronic acid tablets ranged from 14 s for Pharmachemie (Netherlands) to 342 s (5.7 min) for Betapharm (Germany). The mean disintegration time of the branded product tablets ranged from 43 to 78 s. Six of the 26 companies market alendronic acid tablets with very rapid disintegration times which are similar to those of orally disintegrating tablets (non-bisphosphonates). The alendronic acid tablets with very rapid mean disintegration times are as follows: Pharmachemie (Netherlands), 14 s; Novopharm (Canada), 13-24 s; GRY-Pharma (Germany), 21 s; Juta Pharma (Germany), 30 s; APS/Teva (United Kingdom), 26 and 37 s; and Teva (UK), 14-29 s. Since there is no established disintegration time for alendronic acid tablets there can be no assurance that the copy tablets are equivalent to the branded product in terms of esophageal drug exposure. However, the in vitro disintegration times have not been correlated with in vivo disintegration and performance. The dissolution of all the bisphosphonate tablets was rapid with greater than 80% dissolved in 15 min and all products conformed to the USP 30 specification. CONCLUSIONS: The dissolution of all alendronic acid tablets was rapid and complete and conformed to the established USP 30 specifications which should ensure adequate drug absorption from the copy products. However, copies of alendronic acid tablets are approved based on the results of single-dose bioavailability studies in healthy subjects and this is not adequate to establish similar disintegration characteristics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".