Evaluation of in vitro dissolution profiles of modified-release metoprolol succinate tablets crushed using mortar and pestle technique

PURPOSE

Clinical practice guidelines advise against crushing modified-release dosage forms. Metoprolol succinate modified-release (MS-MR) tablets are commonly crushed in clinical practice to facilitate administration to patients with swallowing difficulties or using feeding tubes. To date, the effect of this practice remains unexplored. The in vitro effects of crushing commercially available MS-MR tablets were explored using a holistic approach.

METHODS

Dissolution profiles of crushed versus whole MS-MR tablets were compared. Tablets were crushed to powder state using pragmatic method mimicking hospital practices. For standardization purposes, the same operator, duration (60 seconds), hand, and mortar-pestle apparatus were used. Dissolution studies were conducted per U.S. Pharmacopeia at pH 1.2, pH 4.5, and pH 6.8 with USP apparatus 2 (paddle) at rotation speed of 50 rpm at 37±0.5 °C in 500 mL dissolution media. Samples were withdrawn at predetermined time points. Percent drug dissolved was measured by validated UV-vis Spectrophotometry. Comprehensive analysis of the dissolution data was conducted using model-independent, model-dependent, and ANOVA-based approaches (SPSS v.23 at α=0.05). Similarity (f2) and difference (f1) factors were calculated to compare the dissolution profiles between crushed (CT) and whole tablets (WT). Goodness of fit (GOF) analysis examined the compliance between in vitro dissolution behaviors and several drug release models. Model selection was based on GOF plots, Akaike criteria and adjusted coefficient of determination (R2adj). Imaging and particle size distribution analysis were conducted to examine associated surface and morphologic changes.

RESULTS

The dissolution profiles were not similar at pH 4.5 (f2=45.43, f1=18.97) and pH 6.8 (f2=31.47, f1=32.94). CT best fitted with Higuchi (pH 1.2: R2adj=0.9990), Weibull (pH 4.5: R2adj=0.9884), and Korsmeyer-Peppas (pH 6.8: R2adj=0.9719). Contrastingly, WT best fitted with Hopfenberg (pH 1.2: R2adj=0.9986), logistic (pH 4.5: R2adj=0.9839) and first-order (pH 6.8: R2adj=0.9979) models. A significant difference in the dissolution profiles was found between CT and WT using multivariate analysis of variance per time points and between the tablet forms (p=0.004). This was confirmed by unparalleled dissolution profiles. Crushing resulted in variations in particle size and surface morphological changes to the micropellets.

CONCLUSION

Crushing practices change the dissolution profile of MS-MR tablets by deforming the surface morphology of embedded micropellets. Amounts of drug dissolved between CT and WT were not the same at the compared time points across gastrointestinal pH ranges. This suggests potential clinical impact on plasma-concentration profiles of critically ill patients using feeding tube.

Within-subject pharmacokinetic variability has a strong influence on individual exposure ratios in bioequivalence studies, hence on drug formulation interchangeability

INTRODUCTION

Bioequivalence between a reference and a generic drug is based on the hypothesis that a ± 20% change in blood exposure (or ± 10% for drugs with narrow therapeutic index, NTI) following the generic/reference switch will not have any therapeutic consequences. However, the individual exposure ratio between generic and reference can be higher than 1.20 (or 1.10). This study aims to analyse the different parameters influencing the individual exposure ratio, hence the conditions for reference/generic interchangeability.

METHODS

Bioequivalence studies with a double cross-over design for a virtual drug were simulated using 100 random sets of 12, 24, 48 or 100 pairs of areas under the curve (AUC), varying the generic/reference AUC geometric mean ratios between 0.80 and 1.25 and the within-subject exposure variance of the reference and the generic formulations.

RESULTS

The proportion of subjects with an exposure generic/reference ratio outside the ± 10% or ± 20% acceptance intervals increases when (1) the reference within-subject variance increases; (2) the ratio of the generic within-subject variance on the reference within-subject variance increases; and (3) the generic/reference mean AUC ratio diverges from 1.0. When only considering replicated administrations of the reference, the individual exposure ratio increases with the within-subject variance, yielding values outside the usually accepted individual exposure ratio range of 0.5 to 2 for drugs with narrow therapeutic index as soon as the within-subject variance standard deviation is ≥ 0.25 (equivalent to within-patient CV% > 25%).

CONCLUSIONS

Interchangeability between reference and generic formulations, especially for drugs with narrow therapeutic index can only be assumed if, the within-subject variance of generic is less or equal to the within-subject variance of reference or, if this is not the case, if the distribution of the generic/generic individual exposure ratios is included within the therapeutic margins of the reference drug.