Equivalence of conventional and sustained release oral dosage formulations of acetazolamide in primary open angle glaucoma.

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
1 Outpatients with primary open angle glaucoma uncontrolled on single topical therapy with either pilocarpine or timolol were recruited for a stratified double dummy cross over trial. Once or twice daily sustained release acetazolamide (SRA) was compared with an identical regime of conventional tablets (CA). 2 During the run in period the patients received 500 mg SRA once or twice daily as needed to control intraocular pressure (IOP). The dose was thereafter kept constant and patients were allocated randomly to 4 weeks treatment with CA followed by 4 weeks SRA or vice versa. IOP and venous plasma concentrations of acetazolamide were measured at weekly intervals. At the end of each 4 week course, patients were admitted for a 24 h profile of IOP and drug concentration measurements. 3 Thirty-five patients were recruited, but eleven were withdrawn during the run in period largely because of adverse effects; these became less troublesome when it was decided to give the once daily dose at 22.00 h. Four were withdrawn during the cross over, two because of inadequate IOP control. Twenty completed the trial. 4 The morning plasma concentration of acetazolamide measured each weak showed no tendency to accumulation during the study. The mean swing (maximum minus minimum) in plasma acetazolamide concentration during the 24 h profile was less (P < 0.005) with the SR formulation (11.6 .+-. 4.9; mg 1-1 .+-. s.d.) than with the conventional (15.5 .+-. 4.7) but the mean concentrations over the 24 h profile were indistinguishable (P > 0.05; 9.7 .+-. 3.8 and 8.6 .+-. 2.8 respectively). 5 Satisfactory control of IOP (no more than one reading above 22 mmHg) was maintained despite the changes in formulation in all but two of the patients who entered the cross over study. No close relationship between IOP and plasma concentration of acetazolamide was found. The 24 h IOP profiles whilst receiving each of the formulations were indistinguishable; thus the smoothing of the plasma drug concentration profile achieved by the SR formulation did not reduce the amplitude of swings in IOP. Similary, no difference was observed between the formulations with respect to adverse effects. 6 It is concluded that the SR and conventional formulations were equivalent with respect to mean plasma acetazolamide concentration, IOP control and adverse effects. The SR formulation did not show practical advantage over the conventional formulation which was equally effective even with dosage intervals of 12 or 24 h.

This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit: