Utilization of Diluted Compendial Media as Dissolution Test Solutions with Low Buffer Capacity for the Investigation of Dissolution Rate of Highly Soluble Immediate Release Drug Products

Dissolution Profiles of Immediate Release Products of Various Drugs in Biorelevant Bicarbonate Buffer: Comparison with Compendial Phosphate Buffer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to clarify the extent to which the dissolution profiles of immediate release (IR) products of various drugs differ between biorelevant bicarbonate buffer (BCB) and compendial phosphate buffer (PPB).

METHODS

The dissolution profiles of the IR products of fifteen poorly soluble ionizable drugs were measured in BCB and PPB. BCB was set to be relevant to the small intestine (pH 6.8, 10 mM). The pH was maintained using the floating lid method. The Japanese pharmacopeia second fluid (JP2, 25 mM phosphate buffer, nominal pH 6.8) was used as compendial PPB. The compendial paddle apparatus was used for the dissolution tests (500 mL, 50 rpm, 37°C).

RESULTS

In 11/15 cases, a difference in dissolved% (< 0.8 or > 1.25-fold) was observed at a time point. In 4/15 cases, the ratio of the area under the dissolution curve was not equivalent (< 0.8 or > 1.25-fold). In the cases of free-form drugs, the dissolution rate tended to be slower in BCB than in JP2. In the case of salt-form drugs, a marked difference was observed for the cases that showed supersaturation. However, no trend was observed in the differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Many IR products showed differences in the dissolution profiles between biorelevant BCB and compendial PPB. With the floating lid method, BCB is as simple and easy to use as PPB. Biorelevant BCB is recommended for dissolution testing.

Bicarbonate buffer dissolution test with gentle mechanistic stress for bioequivalence prediction of enteric-coated pellet formulations

This study aimed to develop a dissolution test that can predict the bioequivalence (BE) of enteric-coated pellet formulations. The original duloxetine hydrochloride capsule (reference formulation (RF); Cymbalta® 30 mg capsule) and four generic test formulations (two capsules (CP) and two orally disintegrating tablets (OD)) were used as model formulations. Clinical BE studies were conducted on 24-47 healthy male subjects under fasting conditions. Dissolution tests were performed using a compendial paddle method (PD) (paddle speed: 50 rpm) and a flow-through cell method (FTC) (flow rate: 4 mL/min). For a further test, cotton balls were added to the vessel to apply gentle mechanistic stress to the formulations, and paddle speed was reduced to 10 rpm (paddle with cotton ball method (PDCB)).All the dissolution tests were conducted with 0.01 M HCl (pH 2.0) for 0.5 h followed by 10 mM bicarbonate buffer solutions (pH 6.5) for 4 h. One each of the two CP and two OD showed BE with RF. PDCB was able to discriminate between BE and non-BE formulations, while this was not possible with PD and FTC. In PDCB, the cotton balls intermittently moved the pellets near the vessel bottom. PDCB is useful for predicting BE during formulation development.

Lowly-buffered biorelevant dissolution testing is not necessarily biopredictive of human bioequivalence study outcome: Relationship between dissolution and pharmacokinetics

It has been revealed that buffer capacity of aspirated human intraluminal fluid is much lower than that of in vitro compendial dissolution media. Since buffer capacity significantly alters the dissolution profile of certain drug products, dissolution testing in highly buffered media dictates poor predictability of in vivo drug performance. To mitigate this inconsistency, low buffer capacity medium was suggested as an in vivo representation (biorelevant dissolution testing). The purpose of this study was to characterize the dissolution profiles of enteric-coated drug products in different buffer capacity media in a flow through cell dissolution apparatus, and to evaluate the in vivo predictability of human bioequivalence study outcomes conducted in the fasted state. It was confirmed that the lower the buffer capacity of dissolution media, the higher the discriminatory power of esomeprazole magnesium hydrate enteric-coated pellets, reflecting human bioequivalence failure. In the meantime, two duloxetine hydrochloride enteric-coated pellets also exhibited distinct dissolution profiles in such a lowly buffered medium despite the fact that these two are bioequivalent in human. Biopharmaceutical and pharmacokinetic characteristics comparison suggested that low intestinal permeability and small systemic elimination rate of duloxetine hinders the clear impact of different dissolution profile on its in vivo performance. These data suggest that dissolution comparison in physiologically-relevant low buffer capacity media is not always indicative of human bioequivalence. Instead, biopharmaceutical and pharmacokinetic aspects must be taken into consideration to make biorelevant dissolution testing biopredictive.

Development of bicarbonate buffer flow-through cell dissolution test and its application in prediction of in vivo performance of colon targeting tablets

The purpose of this study was to develop a bicarbonate buffer flow-through cell (FTC) dissolution test. Mesalazine colon targeting tablets of a generic development product (test formulation, TF; Mesalazine 400 mg tablet) and the original product (reference formulation, RF; Asacol® 400 mg tablet) were used as model formulations. A clinical bioequivalence (BE) study was conducted on 48 healthy male subjects under fasting conditions. The oral absorption time profiles were calculated by point-area deconvolution. The compendial paddle and FTC apparatus were used for dissolution tests. Bicarbonate or phosphate-citrate buffer solutions (McIlvaine buffer) were used as the dissolution media. A floating lid was used to maintain the pH value of the bicarbonate buffer solution in the vessel (paddle) or the reservoir (FTC). In the development of bicarbonate FTC method, the pH changes of bicarbonate buffer solution (pH 5.5-7.5; 5-50 mM bicarbonate) were evaluated. For the evaluation of colon targeting tablets, the dissolution profiles of TF and RF were measured at a pH of 7.5. The TF and RF formulations were exposed to 0.01 HCl (pH 2.0) for 2 h before pH 7.5. In the clinical BE study, drug dissolution started 4-8 h after oral administration and continued slowly more than 10 h. Both the area under the curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of TF were approximately twice as high as those of RF. In the development of the bicarbonate FTC method, the pH change of the bicarbonate buffer solution was suppressed by the floating lid within ∆pH < 0.1 over 10 h. In the dissolution test of McIlvaine buffer solutions, TF and RF showed faster disintegration and higher dissolution than those observed in the clinical BE study. When using the paddle apparatus the dissolution profiles of TF and RF in both buffer solutions were not consistent with those of the clinical result. In bicarbonate FTC, the disintegration time, dissolution rate, and dissolution inequivalence between TF and RF were consistent with the results of the clinical BE study. In conclusion, the bicarbonate FTC method was constructed for the first time in this study. This method is simple and practically useful for predicting in vivo performance of colon targeting tablets during drug development.