The purpose of this study was to enhance the stability of montelukast and levocetirizine for the development of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) monolayer tablet. To evaluate the compatibility of montelukast and levocetirizine, a mixture of the two drugs was prepared, and changes in the appearance characteristics and impurity content were observed in a dry oven at 60 °C. Excipients that contributed minimally to impurity increases were selected to minimize drug interactions. Mannitol, microcrystalline cellulose, croscarmellose sodium, hypromellose, and sodium citrate were chosen as excipients, and montelukast-levocetirizine FDC monolayer tablets were prepared by wet granulating the two drugs separately. A separate granulation of montelukast and levocetirizine, along with the addition of sodium citrate as a pH stabilizer, minimized the changes in tablet appearance and impurity levels. The prepared tablets demonstrated release profiles equivalent to those of commercial products in comparative dissolution tests. Subsequent stability testing at 40 ± 2 °C and 75 ± 5% RH for 6 months confirmed that the drug content, dissolution rate, and impurity content met the specified acceptance criteria. In conclusion, the montelukast-levocetirizine FDC monolayer tablet developed in this study offers a potential alternative to commercial products.

The incidence of allergic rhinitis (AR) in Asia and the world is steadily rising. Patients experience incomplete symptom relief despite existing treatment options, which warrants the need for new therapeutic regimes. Azelastine hydrochloride/fluticasone propionate (MP-AzeFlu), a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate has been indicated in the treatment of AR. The current review discusses the effects of MP-AzeFlu versus conventional therapies in achieving superior clinical improvement with a very rapid onset of action (5 minutes). The superiority of MP-AzeFlu in offering complete symptom control with sustained relief in patients with AR compared to the existing therapeutic options is also discussed. MP-AzeFlu has been shown to improve the quality of life for patients with AR, thereby enhancing patient adherence to therapy and establishing its preference for the treatment of AR. Currently, the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines recommend the use of a combination of intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines as first-line treatment in patients with persistent AR with visual analog scores ≥5 or when prior treatment with single agents has been ineffective. Widely published data on the efficacy and safety of its prolonged use in adults and children have validated that effective treatment of AR can be achieved with MP-AzeFlu.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of switching from the concomitant use of brinzolamide 1% (BZM) and brimonidine 0.1% (BMD) to a BZM/BMD fixed-dose combination (BBFC) for the reduction of corneal epithelial damage.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: This study involved 52 eyes of 52 glaucoma patients (26 women, 26 men; mean age: 67.0 ± 14.0 years) followed for more than 3 months after being switched from concomitant BZM and BMD to BBFC. Superficial punctate keratitis (SPK) was assessed by fluorescein staining according to the National Eye Institute classification, with the cornea divided into 5 areas: center, superior, nasal, temporal, and inferior. SPK density was graded as 0 (no SPK), 1 (separate SPK), 2 (moderately dense SPK), and 3 (high SPK with overlapping lesions). SPK scores and intraocular pressure (IOP) at pre switching to BBFC (pre-BBFC) and at 3-months post switching to BBFC (post-BBFC) were then compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
RESULTS: At pre-BBFC and post-BBFC, respectively, mean IOP was 12.4 ± 2.5 and 12.4 ± 2.7 mmHg, thus illustrating no significant difference in IOP between pre and post switch (p = 0.924), and the mean SPK score for center, superior, nasal, temporal, and inferior was 0.06 ± 0.24, 0.04 ± 0.19, 0.52 ± 0.67, 0.15 ± 0.36, and 0.92 ± 0.74, and 0.04 ± 0.19, 0.02 ± 0.14, 0.37 ± 0.56, 0.04 ± 0.19, and 0.75 ± 0.62, thus clearly showing a significant reduction in SPK scores for the nasal, temporal, and inferior areas at post-BBFC compared to those at pre-BBFC (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal that compared with the concomitant use of BZM and BMD, BBFC is effective in reducing corneal epithelial damage.

UNASSIGNED: Management of hypertension and hyperlipidemia, which are common comorbid risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, require multiple medications. The development of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) containing ezetimibe, rosuvastatin, telmisartan, and amlodipine aims to enhance patient adherence and persistence, but the potential interactions among the four medications have not been studied. This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between the FDC of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin 10/20 mg (ER) and the FDC of telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg (TA).
UNASSIGNED: An open-label, single-sequence, three-period, three-treatment crossover study was conducted in healthy male subjects. All subjects received ER for 7 days, TA for 9 days and ER combined with TA for 7 days during each treatment period. For PK analysis of total/free ezetimibe, rosuvastatin, telmisartan, and amlodipine, serial blood samples were collected for 24 hours at steady state. Safety profiles were assessed throughout the study.
UNASSIGNED: Thirty-eight subjects were enrolled, and 34 subjects completed the study. The systemic exposure to each active ingredient after coadministration of the two FDCs was similar to that after each FDC alone. The geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals for the maximum plasma concentration (µg/L) and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (h·µg/L) of the combination therapy to monotherapy, assessed at steady state, were as follows: total ezetimibe, 1.0264 (0.8765-1.2017) and 0.9359 (0.7847-1.1163); free ezetimibe, 1.5713 (1.2821-1.9257) and 0.9941 (0.8384-1.1788); rosuvastatin, 2.1673 (1.7807-2.6379) and 1.1714 (0.9992-1.3733); telmisartan, 1.0745 (0.8139-1.4186) and 1.1057 (0.8379-1.4591); and amlodipine, 0.9421 (0.8764-1.0126) and 0.9603 (0.8862-1.0405). Both combination therapy and monotherapy were well tolerated by the subjects.
UNASSIGNED: The coadministration of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin 10/20 mg and ezetimibe/rosuvastatin 10/20 mg was well tolerated in healthy subjects, and the PK interaction between those two FDCs was not clinically significant.

This study aimed to develop a 3D-printed fixed-dose combination tablet featuring differential release of two drugs using double-melt extrusion (DME). The hot-melt extrusion (HME) process was divided into two steps to manufacture a single filament containing the two drugs. In Step I, a sustained-release matrix of acetaminophen (AAP) was obtained through HME at 190 °C using Eudragit® S100, a pH-dependent polymer with a high glass transition temperature. In Step II, a filament containing both sustained-release AAP from Step I and solubilized ibuprofen (IBF) was fabricated via HME at 110 °C using a mixture of hydroxy propyl cellulose (HPC-LF) and Eudragit® EPO, whose glass transition temperatures make them suitable for use in a 3D printer. A filament manufactured using DME was used to produce a cylindrical 3D-printed fixed-dose combination tablet with a diameter and height of 9 mm. To evaluate the release characteristics of the manufactured filament and 3D-printed tablet, dissolution tests were conducted for 10 h under simulated gastrointestinal tract conditions using the pH jump method with the United States Pharmacopeia apparatus II paddle method at 37 ± 0.5 °C and 50 rpm. Dissolution tests confirmed that both the sustained-release and solubilized forms of AAP and IBF within the filament and 3D-printed tablet exhibited distinct drug-release behaviors. The physicochemical properties of the filament and 3D-printed tablet were confirmed by thermogravimetric analysis, differential scanning calorimetry, powder X-ray diffraction, and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. HME transforms crystalline drugs into amorphous forms, demonstrating their physicochemical stability. Scanning electron microscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy indicated the presence of sustained AAP granules within the filament, confirming that the drugs were independently separated within the filament and 3D-printed tablets. Finally, sustained-release AAP and solubilized IBF were independently incorporated into the filaments using DME technology. Therefore, a dual-release 3D-printed fixed-dose combination was prepared using the proposed filament.

BACKGROUND: Dexketoprofen/tramadol 25/75 mg (DKP/TRAM) is a fixed-dose combination of a cyclooxygenase inhibitor and opioid receptor agonist. To better understand the efficacy and safety of DKP/TRAM in the treatment of moderate to severe acute lower back pain (LBP) with or without radiculopathy, we carried out a large explorative phase IV international, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled study (DANTE).
METHODS: A total of 538 patients with or without a history of LBP and experiencing acute LPB of moderate to severe intensity [Numerical Rating Scale-Pain Intensity (NRS-PI) score > 5] were randomized 4:4:1:1 to DKP/TRAM 25/75 mg every 8 h (n = 211), tramadol (TRAM) 100 mg (n = 207), placebo-matched DKP/TRAM (n = 59), or placebo-matched TRAM (n = 61).
RESULTS: The proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, defined as the time to first achieve NRS-PI score < 4 or pain intensity reduction ≥ 30% from drug intake up to 8 h after the first dose, was higher in the DKP/TRAM arm than in the placebo group, but the difference was not statistically significant (46.1% vs. 42.6%, respectively; hazard ratio 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.775, 1.595; p = 0.566). DKP/TRAM achieved superiority over TRAM in total pain relief at 4, 6, and 8 h (p < 0.05). Conversely, in relation to the secondary endpoints, a significantly greater reduction in NRS-PI score was seen with DKP/TRAM versus placebo starting from 1 h, and this reduction remained numerically lower throughout 8 h. Summed pain intensity difference values were also significantly lower at 4, 6, and 8 h with DKP/TRAM compared to TRAM (p < 0.05). Overall, DKP/TRAM was well tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary endpoint was not met, secondary efficacy analyses suggest the superiority of DKP/TRAM over placebo and TRAM alone in terms of total pain relief. DKP/TRAM can be considered to be an effective and safe option for the treatment of moderate to severe acute LBP.
UNASSIGNED: EudraCT number: 2019-003656-37; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05170841.

Introduction Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a prevalent chronic metabolic disorder, necessitates multifaceted treatment approaches. Emerging studies highlight the cardiovascular advantages of sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in T2DM. This investigation delves into the synergistic effects of the fixed-dose combination (FDC) of sitagliptin and dapagliflozin, offering insights into its safety and efficacy for the Indian population. Methods This real-world, retrospective, observational study spanned 328 cases across 111 Indian centres, evaluating the safety, efficacy, and clinical utilization of the sitagliptin and dapagliflozin FDC in T2DM patients after obtaining ethical approval. Assessments at baseline, week four, and week 12 encompassed hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial blood glucose (PPBG), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and weight change. The statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 29.0.1.0(171) (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) with a significance level p<0.05. Results Study participants [mean age: 51.14±5.55 years, 77.74% (n=255) males, 22.26% (n=73) females] exhibited prevalent risk factors like sedentary lifestyle (n=167, 50.91%) and smoking (n=147, 44.82%). Comorbidities included hypertension (n=235, 71.65%) and dyslipidaemia (n=139, 42.38%). Metformin (n=282, 85.98%) and sulfonylurea (n=134, 40.85%) were commonly prescribed concomitant oral antidiabetic agents (OADs). FDC administration significantly reduced HbA1c by 1.05 ± 0.83% (p < 0.0001) at week 12. FPG and PPBG showed significant reductions of 22.98 ± 22.23 mg/dL (p < 0.0001), 165.50 ± 37.02 mg/dL and 40.94 ± 36.04 mg/dL (p < 0.0001) at four weeks respectively. By week 12, significant reductions were noted in SBP (14.61±13.98mmHg reduction, p-value <0.0001), DBP (7.80±8.45mmHg reduction, p-value <0.0001), and LDL-C levels (18.14±23.95 mg/dL reduction, p-value <0.0001). In patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was reduction in HbA1c levels by 1.02 ± 0.63% after 12 weeks, with FPG decreasing by 54.52 ± 32.67 mg/dL and PPBG decreasing by 88.73 ± 44.90 mg/dL. Treatment-emergent adverse events included headache, changes in micturition, genital mycotic infection, and nausea and diarrhoea which were mild, transient, and necessitated no treatment discontinuation. Conclusion The FDC of sitagliptin and dapagliflozin significantly improved glycaemic control and lipid profiles in T2DM patients, particularly those with coronary artery disease. It demonstrated a favourable safety profile in the Indian population, signifying its potential as an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option in patients with established cardiovascular disease.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1156655.].

OBJECTIVE: The present study compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of the new fixed-dose combination (FDC) of telmisartan 40 mg + bisoprolol 5 mg (TBP) tablets with the existing comparator FDC telmisartan 40 mg + metoprolol succinate ER 50 mg (TMS) tablets in patients with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension.
METHODS: The multicentric, double-blind, parallel-group, comparative, prospective, phase-III clinical study involved 264 subjects with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension from 10 centres across India. The selected subjects were randomized into two groups: group A received the TMS and group B received the new FDC TBP. The primary endpoint was the mean change in seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) and seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) from baseline to week 12 in both the control and study arms. The secondary endpoint was achieving the target of SeSBP <140 mmHg and SeDBP <90 mmHg from baseline to week 12 in both groups. Safety and tolerability parameters were evaluated in both groups based on adverse effects (AEs) reported by the patients and the physician.
RESULTS: Both treatment groups exhibited a reduction in BP after 2 weeks of treatment, which was sustained until 12 weeks. The mean change in SeSBP and SeDBP at weeks 2, 6, and 12 compared to the previous visit showed statistical significance (p < 0.001) in all cases for both groups A and B. The mean changes in SeSBP and SeDBP from baseline to study end were numerically higher in group B than in group A. The mean difference in SeSBP from baseline to study end was significantly higher in group B compared to group A (p = 0.029). By week 12, 88.28 % and 89.84 % of subjects in group B achieved SeSBP <140 mmHg and SeDBP <90 mmHg respectively, while 86.71 % and 91.40 % of subjects in group A achieved the same targets. Reported AEs were mostly mild to moderate in both treatment groups, and no serious AEs or deaths were reported. Tolerability was rated as \'excellent\' by 93.75 % of subjects in group B and 91.40 % of subjects in group A.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the new FDC TBP and the existing comparator TMS combination therapy have comparable efficacy, tolerability, and safety for the management of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension.
UNASSIGNED: Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) TRIAL REGISTRATION NO: CTRI/2021/11/037,926 PROTOCOL NO: MLBTL/05/2021 PROTOCOL URL: https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=62069&EncHid=&userName=bisoprolol.

BACKGROUND: Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of angiotensin II receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, and statins are conventional therapeutic interventions prescribed for cardiovascular diseases. This study aimed at drawing a comparison between the pharmacokinetics and safety of an FDC and the corresponding individual formulations in healthy subjects.
METHODS: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, three-sequence, three-period, partially repeated crossover study was conducted with a cohort of healthy volunteers. A 14-day washout period was maintained between each of the three periods. In this study, candesartan cilexetil, amlodipine, and atorvastatin was administered orally as FDCs of 16/10/40 mg in study 1 and 16/5/20 mg in study 2. The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast) of candesartan, amlodipine, and atorvastatin were estimated as the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the FDC to individual formulations. If the within-subject coefficient of variation (CVwr) of Cmax was greater than 0.3, the bioequivalence (BE) range calculated using the reference-scaled average bioequivalence was used to assess whether the 90% CI was within the BE range.
RESULTS: The GMRs (90% CIs) for the AUClast for candesartan and amlodipine were 0.9612 (0.9158-1.0089)/0.9965 (0.9550-1.0397) and 1.0033 (0.9800-1.0271)/1.0067 (0.9798-1.0344), and the GMRs (90% CIs) for Cmax were 0.9600 (0.8953-1.0294)/0.9851 (0.9368-1.0359) and 1.0198 (0.9950-1.0453)/1.0003 (0.9694-1.0321) in studies 1 and 2, respectively. The extended BE ranges calculated from the CVwr of the Cmax of atorvastatin were 0.7814-1.2797 and 0.7415-1.3485, respectively. The GMRs (90% CIs) for the AUClast of atorvastatin were 1.0532 (1.0082-1.1003)/1.0252 (0.9841-1.0680), and the GMRs (90% CIs) for Cmax were 1.0630 (0.9418-1.1997)/0.9888 (0.8792-1.1120) in studies 1 and 2, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The Cmax and AUClast values of candesartan cilexetil/amlodipine/atorvastatin 16/10/40 mg and 16/5/20 mg, respectively, were within the BE ranges. There were no clinically significant differences in safety between the two formulations.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, study 1: NCT04478097; study 2: NCT04627207.