Table 4.

Statistical comparison of the results obtained by the proposed spectrophotometric methods and those obtained by the reported one for the determination of the cited drugs in the two studied pharmaceutical formulations.

Parameter	Exforge HCT® Formula I (VAL: AML: HCT) (32.0: 1.0:2.5)
	VAL (D0)				AML(D0)		HCT(D0)
	Reported method [16]a	SS of D0 HCT via AE	SS of D0 HCT via PE	SS of D0 HCT via RE	Reported method [16]a	CM	Reported method [16]a	AE	PE	RE
Mean	100.50	100.16	100.66	99.89	98.66	99.10	99.19	99.20	99.58	99.80
S.D	0.60	0.57	0.45	0.53	0.48	0.64	0.56	0.54	0.70	0.42
n	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6
Variance	0.3600	0.3249	0.2025	0.2809	0.2304	0.4096	0.3136	0.2916	0.4900	0.1764
Student's t-test b (2.228)	–	1.006	0.522	1.866	–	1.347	–	0.031	1.066	2.134
F test b (5.05)	–	1.11	1.78	1.28	–	1.78	–	1.08	1.56	1.78
		Exforge HCT® Formula II (VAL: AML:HCT) (16.0:1.0:2.5)
	VAL				AML		HCT
Parameters	Reported method [16]a	SS of D0 HCT via AE	SS of D0 HCT via PE	SS of D0 HCT via RE	Reported method [16]a	CM	Reported method [16]a	AE	PE	RE
Mean	100.71	100.41	100.33	100.08	100.05	100.12	101.40	100.80	100.93	100.82
SD	0.43	0.50	0.37	0.64	0.68	0.67	0.81	0.55	0.67	0.52
n	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6
Variance	0.1849	0.2500	0.1369	0.4096	0.4624	0.4489	0.6561	0.3025	0.4489	0.2704
Student's t-test b (2.228)	–	1.114	1.641	2.002	–	0.180	–	1.501	1.095	1.476
F test b (5.05)	–	1.72	1.35	2.22	–	0.97	–	2.17	1.46	2.43

^aReported UHPLC method using C₁₈ column and mobile phase consisting of acetonitrile-methanol-phosphate buffer, 25:50:25, by volume, pH 2.8.

^bThe figures in parenthesis are the corresponding theoretical values at P = 0.05.