| Literature DB >> 31405055 |
Naoko Yoshida1, Miku Yuasa2, Tey Sovannarith3, Eav Dararth4, Tep Keila3, Heng Bun Kiet4, Hirohito Tsuboi2, Tsuyoshi Tanimoto5, Kazuko Kimura6.
Abstract
Medicine falsification is a global issue. Viagra, an erectile dysfunction therapeutic (EDT) medicine consisting primarily of sildenafil citrate, is the most commonly falsified medicine worldwide. Recently falsified EDTs have been reported multiple times in developing countries. The globalization of falsified EDTs has become a concern. In the present study, we selected sildenafil citrate tablets as an indicator and examined samples from a developing country, Cambodia, to investigate the availability of falsified sildenafil tablets in Cambodia and verify the current globalization status of falsified medicines from the standpoint of a developing country. Six samples of the originator Viagra, and 68 samples of generic sildenafil products were purchased from private drug outlets and wholesalers in Phnom Penh, Svay Rieng, and Battambang. The samples' manufacturers were contacted to authenticate the samples. The quantities and dissolution rates of active ingredients were measured by a high-performance liquid chromatography system with photodiode array. Five generic samples were strongly suspected to be falsified medicines because of their extremely low quality; however, there was little distribution and no falsified medicine alleged to be produced by the originator of Viagra, which charges high prices. That finding indicates that falsification reflects local economic circumstances.Entities:
Keywords: falsified medicines; globalization; sildenafil citrate
Year: 2019 PMID: 31405055 PMCID: PMC6789723 DOI: 10.3390/pharmacy7030111
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmacy (Basel) ISSN: 2226-4787
Numbers of sales outlets.
| Area | Shop | Year | Visited | Product Sold | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Viagra | Generic | ||||
| Phnom Penh | outlet | 2010 2011 | 68 | 1 | 24 |
| 57 | 2 | 0 | |||
| wholesaler | 2010 2011 | 14 | 1 | 5 | |
| 8 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Battambang | outlet | 2011 | 32 | 0 | 14 |
| Svay Rieng | outlet | 2010 | 29 | 0 | 6 |
| Total | 209 | 5 | 49 | ||
Outline of samples collected.
| Category | Product Code | Manufacturing Country | Number of Samples ( | Price per Tablet (US $, Mean ± SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Originator | Viagra | Australia | 6 | |
| subtotal | 6 | 12.3 ± 2.7 | ||
| Generic | A | India | 2 | |
| B | India | 4 | ||
| C | India | 3 | ||
| D | India | 7 | ||
| E | India | 1 | ||
| F | India | 14 | ||
| G | India | 1 | ||
| H | India | 6 | ||
| I | India | 9 | ||
| J | India | 21 | ||
| subtotal | 68 | 0.51 ± 0.18 |
Outline of sampling.
| Items | Collected Samples | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | ||
| Sampling area | Phnom Penh Battambang Svay Rieng | 43 | 58.1 |
| 25 | 33.8 | ||
| 6 | 8.1 | ||
| Shop category | Legal (Pharmacy) (Depot A) (Depot B) Illegal Wholesaler | 63 | 85.1 |
| (36) | (48.6) | ||
| (7) | (9.5) | ||
| (20) | (27.0) | ||
| 2 | 2.7 | ||
| 9 | 12.2 | ||
| Strength | 100 mg | 64 | 86.5 |
| 50 mg | 10 | 13.5 | |
Results of authenticity investigation.
| Items | Originator (Viagra) | Generic | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturers’ reply ( | |||||
| Sample authentication | Genuine/replied Other | 6/6 | 38 | 44 | |
| 0 | 30 | 30 | |||
| Regulatory authorities’ reply ( | |||||
| Product legitimacy | Legitimate/replied Other | 1/1 | 0 | 1 | |
| 0 | 10 | 10 | |||
| Manufacturer legitimacy | Legitimate/replied Other | 1/1 | 0 | 1 | |
| 0 | 10 | 10 | |||
| Registration number ( | |||||
| Existed Nonexistent | 6 | 67 | 73 | ||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Registration status ( | |||||
| Registered Other | 6 | 67 | 73 | ||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | |||
Figure 1Abnormal points found in the observation test. (a) The batch number and expiry date were different from those on the outer package and blister pack in five samples of product F. (b) There was a hole in the blister packin a sample of product D. (c) The appearances of the film coating were different across all tablets in five samples of product J.
Results of quality test of poor-quality samples.
| Sample Code | Product Code | Quality (Mean ± SD) | Answer in the Authenticity Investigation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantity (%) | Dissolution (%) | |||
| A003/CB11 | A | 95.8 ± 2.4 | 63.6 ± 5.1 | Not obtained |
| A076/CB10 | F | 37.3 ± 1.7 | 39.5 ± 1.0 | Not obtained |
| A055/CB10 | F | 39.3 ± 1.0 | 40.2 ± 0.9 | Not obtained |
| PP002/CB10 | F | 49.2 ± 3.8 | 47.4 ± 0.4 | Not obtained |
| A066/CB10 | F | 46.0 ± 2.0 | 48.3 ± 1.4 | Not obtained |
| A120/CB10 | F | 47.1 ± 1.2 | 49.6 ± 1.8 | Not obtained |
| A100/CB10 | H | 86.8 ± 4.6 | 93.9 ± 0.5 | Not obtained |
| A119/CB10 | H | 80.4 ± 1.7 | 87.1 ± 1.5 | Not obtained |
| B021/CB10 | H | 81.6 ± 1.3 | 86.6 ± 2.4 | Not obtained |
| A138/CB10 | H | 88.3 ± 0.3 | 91.0 ± 0.8 | Not obtained |
| PAB002/CB10 | I | 101.1 ± 4.6 | 6.4 ± 10.4 | Not obtained |
| A043/CB11 | I | 95.2 ± 8.3 | 56.9 ± 48.1 | Not obtained |
Comparison of excipient contents between standard and substandard samples.
| Product Code | Dosage Form (mg/Tablet) | Quality | Number of Tested Tablets | Mean ± SD (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Viagra | 50 | Standard Substandard | 2 | 84.40 ± 0.352 * No value | Not tested | No value |
| 0 | ||||||
| 100 | Standard Substandard | 12 | 84.20 ± 0.257 No value | Not tested | No value | |
| 0 | ||||||
| A | 100 | Standard Substandard | 6 | 83.48 ± 0.454 84.02 ± 0.071 | Student | 0.016 |
| 6 | ||||||
| B | 100 | Standard Substandard | 18 | 83.84 ± 0.351 No value | Not tested | No value |
| 0 | ||||||
| C | 100 | Standard Substandard | 12 | 82.54 ± 0.324 No value | Not tested | No value |
| 0 | ||||||
| D | 100 | Standard Substandard | 36 | 82.91 ± 0.403 No value | Not tested | No value |
| 0 | ||||||
| E | 100 | Standard Substandard | 3 | 82.32 ± 0.203 No value | Not tested | No value |
| 0 | ||||||
| F | 100 | Standard Substandard | 33 | 76.87 ± 7.586 93.02 ± 0.626 | Welch | <0.001 |
| 24 | ||||||
| G | 50 | Standard Substandard | 3 | 84.19 ± 0.422 No value | Not tested | No value |
| 0 | ||||||
| H | 50 | Standard Substandard | 3 | 87.58 ± 0.572 No value | Not tested | No value |
| 0 | ||||||
| 100 | Standard Substandard | 12 | 75.34 ± 2.188 No value | Not tested | No value | |
| 0 | ||||||
| I | 50 | Standard Substandard | 33 | 82.20 ± 0.696 No value | Not tested | No value |
| 0 | ||||||
| J | 100 | Standard Substandard | 6 | 67.47 ± 0.773 68.94 ± 2.086 | Student | 0.119 |
| 12 | ||||||
| 100 | Standard Substandard | 105 | 81.97 ± 0.547 No value | Not tested | No value | |
| 0 |
* Statistically meaningless because of insufficient number of tested tablets.
Figure 2Time course of dissolution for each sample.
Comparison between observation and quality.
| Quality | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Adequate Samples | Number of Poor Samples | ||
| Observation | Number of normal samples | 38 | 7 |
| Number of abnormal samples | 4 | 5 | |