Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Evaluation of physical properties and dose equivalency of generic versus branded latanoprost formulations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 27 December 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to comparatively evaluate the pharmaceutical characteristics of various marketed generic formulations of prostaglandin analogue latanoprost in the Indian market. Three generics of latanoprost and one branded (Xalatan) formulation (five vials each) were obtained from authorized agents from the respective commercial sourcing having the same batch number. These formulations were coded, and the labels were removed. At a standardized room temperature of 25 °C, the concentration, osmolarity, drop size, pH, and total drops per vial were determined for Xalatan and all the generics of latanoprost. The concentration of various brands varied between 50.49 ± 0.36 and 58.90 ± 0.52 µg/ml as compared to the standard labeled concentration of 50 µg/ml on the latanoprost vials. The concentration of drugs in individual drop varied from 1.30 ± 0.05 to 1.78 ± 0.04 µg/drop. The volume of drug formulation per bottle varied from 2.4 ± 0.12 to 2.6 ± 0.09 ml/bottle. The number of drops per bottle varied from minimum of 88.60 ± 0.10 drops to maximum of 102.0 ± 4.3 drops across all the formulations, while the drop size varied from 25.72 ± 2.70 to 29.97 ± 1.38 µl. The osmolarity of 2/4 drugs was within 300 mOs M (±10 %). The specific gravity varied between 0.98 ± 0.01 and 1.007 ± 0.01, while pH was between 7.05 ± 0.004 and 7.13 ± 0.005. Two of the generic brands were outside the United States pharmacopoeia limits (±10%) for ophthalmic formulation, with concentration exceeding the limits by 3 % (p = 0.151) and 8 % (p = 0.008), respectively. This pilot study highlights that there are significant variations in the drug concentrations and physical properties of generic latanoprost formulations. Although none of the brands had concentrations below the recommended level, two of the brands had concentrations exceeding the limits by 3 and 8 %, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Pascolini D, Mariotti SP (2012) Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol 96:614–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Quigley HA, Borman AT (2006) The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 90:262–267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Patel SS, Spencer CM (1996) Latanoprost. A review of its pharmacological properties, clinical efficacy and tolerability in the management of primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Drugs Aging 9(5):363–378

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Zore M, Harris A, Tobe LA, Siesky B, Januleviciene I, Behzadi J et al (2013) Generic medications in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol 97(3):253–257. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bae JP (1997) Drug patent expirations and the speed of generic entry. Health Serv 32:87–101

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ascione FJ, Kirking DM, Gaither CA, Welage LS (2001) Historical overview of generic medication policy. J Am Pharm Assoc 41:567–577

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Genazzani AA, Pattarino F (2008) Difficulties in the production of identical drug products from a pharmaceutical technology viewpoint. Drugs R D 9:65–72

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cantor LB (1997) Ophthalmic generic drug approval process: implications for efficacy and safety. J Glaucoma 6:344–349

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brechue WF, Maren TH (1993) pH and drug ionization affects ocular pressure lowering of topical anhydrase inhibitors. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:2581–2587

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Paolera MD, Kasahara N, Umbelino CC, Walt JC (2008) Comparative study of the stability of bimatoprost 0.03% and latanoprost 0.005%: a patient-use study. BMC Ophthalmol 8:11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson TV, Gupta PK, Vudathala DK, Blair IA, Tanna AP (2011) Thermal stability of bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost under simulated daily use. J Ocul Phrmacol Ther 27:51–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Perry CM, McGavin JK, Culy CR, Ibbotson T (2003) Latanoprost: an update of its use in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Drugs Aging 20(8):597–630

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Alm A, Grierson I, Shields B (2008) Adverse events associated with prostaglandin analogue therapy. Surv Ophthalmol 53(Suppl 1):S93–S105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Alm A, Schoenfelder J, McDermott J (2004) A 5-year, multicenter, open-label, safety study of adjunctive latanoprost therapy for glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 122:957–965

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kahook MY, Fechtner RD, Katz LJ, Noecker RJ, Ammar DA (2012) A comparison of active ingredients and preservatives between brand name and generic topical glaucoma medications using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Curr Eye Res 37(2):101–108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Duvall B, Kershner RM (2006). Pharmaceutical characteristics and delivery. In: Textbook of ophthalmic medications and pharmacology, SLACK Incorporated; 2nd edn, 1:2-3

  17. Narayanaswamy A, Neog A, Baskaran M, George R, Lingam V, Desai C et al (2007) A randomized, crossover, open label pilot study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Xalatan® in comparison with generic latanoprost (Latoprost) in subjects with primary open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Indian J Ophthalmol 55:127–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fiscella RG, Jensen M, Van Dyck G (1998) Generic prednisolone suspension substitution. Arch Ophthalmol 116:703

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stringer W, Bryant R (2010) Dose uniformity of topical corticosteroid preparations; difluprednate ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% versus branded and generic prednisolone acetate ophthalmic suspension 1%. Clin Ophthalmol 4:1119–1124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Velpandian T, Kotnala A, Halder N, Ravi AK, Vikneswari A, Sihota R (2014) Stability of latanoprost in generic formulations using controlled degradation and patient usage simulation studies. Curr Eye Res 11:1–11

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge our statistician viz. Mrs. Veena Pandey, B.Sc, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanuj Dada.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflicting relationship exists for any author.

Additional information

The original online version of this article was revised: In the original publication, one of the authors name was published incorrectly. The correct name should read as Ankita Kotnala.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Angmo, D., Wadhwani, M., Velpandian, T. et al. Evaluation of physical properties and dose equivalency of generic versus branded latanoprost formulations. Int Ophthalmol 37, 423–428 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0280-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0280-x

Keywords

Navigation