Stability of Essential Drugs in Tropical Climates: Zimbabwe - EDM Research Series No. 013
(1994; 86 pages) Ver el documento en el formato PDF
Índice de contenido
Ver el documentoAbbreviations
Ver el documento1. Summary
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenido2. Introduction
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenido3. Study design and methods
Ver el documento4. Results
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenido5. Discussion
Abrir esta carpeta y ver su contenido6. Conclusions and recommendations
Ver el documentoReferences
Cerrar esta carpetaAnnexes
Cerrar esta carpetaAnnex 1: Detailed results for each drug
Ver el documento1.1 Amoxycillin capsules
Ver el documento1.2 Ampicillin capsules
Ver el documento1.3 Acetylsalicylic acid tablets
Ver el documento1.4 Doxycycline capsules
Ver el documento1.5 Ferrous sulfate tablets
Ver el documento1.6 Phenoxymethylpenicillin tablets
Ver el documento1.7 Tetracycline capsules
Ver el documento1.8 Retinol tablets
Ver el documento1.9 Epinephrine injection
Ver el documento1.10 Ampicillin injection
Ver el documento1.11 Benzylpenicillin injection
Ver el documento1.12 Ergometrine injection
Ver el documento1.13 Procaine penicillin injection
Ver el documentoAnnex 2: Validation of laboratory results
 

1.7 Tetracycline capsules

SHELF LIFE

Manufacturers A, B, C: 3 years

ASSAY METHOD

In-house HPLC method. Contents of 20 capsules mixed; measured three times; mean taken.

ASSAY LIMITS

90 - 125% (USP)

SAMPLES OBTAINED

All Manuf.

Manuf. A

Manuf. B

Manuf. C

GMS samples

no

%

no

%

no.

%

no.

%

Total

35

100

13

37

10

29

12

34

Harare

19

54

           

Bulawayo

16

46

           

Facility samples

               

Total

66

100

27

41

25

38

14

21

Age > 50% SLife

5

8

           

Facility type = PCH

50

76

           

Climate = hot

55

83

           

Transport = slow

46

70

           

Longitudinal series

               

Total

31

100

17

55

7

23

7

23

SUMMARY ASSAY RESULTS

 

All Manuf.

Manuf. A

Manuf. B

Manuf. C

GMS samples

no

%

no

%

no.

%

   

Mean age (mths)

 

1.5

 

1.7

 

1.5

 

1.3

Mean assay

 

103.0%

 

103.4%

100.0%

105.0%

95% CL

101.2-104.8%

101.8-105.1%

97.1 - 102.9%

101.0-109.0%

No, and % fail

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Facility samples

All Manuf.

Manuf. A

Manuf. B

Manuf. C

Mean age (mths)

 

10.1

 

9.9

 

12.4

 

6.6

Mean assay

 

103.5%

 

105.8%

101.6%

 

102.5%

95% CL

102.1 - 104.9%

103.7 - 108.0%

99.2-103.9%

100.0-104.9%

No. and % fail

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Longitudinal series

at Manuf.

at GMS

at facility

   

Mean age (mths)

 

0

 

1.6

 

7.2

   

Mean assay

 

102.2%

 

102.4%

103.4%

   

95% CL

100.9-103.4%

100.9-103.8%

101.7-105.2%

   

No, and % fail

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

   
 

Mean interval (mths)

5.7

 

Mean loss (-) or gain (+)

+1.1%

 

95% CL for loss/gain

-0.8 + +3.0%


Figure 1 - Results of facility samples

Findings:

a) No expired samples found.

b) All 35 GMS samples were within assay limits (mean 103.0%).

c) All 66 facility samples were within assay limits (mean 103.5%), however two results were borderline (90.5, 91.0%).

d) No consistent loss of potency was seen in 31 GMS/facility sample pairs,

e) No difference in manufacturers.

f) No initial quality problem was seen.

g) No Sign of instability, however the samples were in the early part of a long shelf-life (mean age 10.1 months).

Ir a la sección anterior Ir a la siguiente sección
 

Última actualización: le 3 mayo 2013