Download PDF
Arzneimittelforschung 2010; 60(1): 42-47
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1296247
Antiemetics · Gastrointestinal Drugs · Urologic Drugs
Editio Cantor Verlag Aulendorf (Germany)

Evaluation of pantoprazole formulations in different dissolution apparatus using biorelevant medium

Daniel Rossi de Campo
1   Clinical Pharmacology and Gastroenterology Unit, São Francisco University Medical School, Bragança Paulista, SP, Brazil
2   Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medical Sciences – UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brazil
,
Sandra Klein
3   Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany
,
Thomas Zolle
3   Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany
,
Nelson Rogério Vieri
1   Clinical Pharmacology and Gastroenterology Unit, São Francisco University Medical School, Bragança Paulista, SP, Brazil
,
Fábio Alessandro Proença Barro
1   Clinical Pharmacology and Gastroenterology Unit, São Francisco University Medical School, Bragança Paulista, SP, Brazil
,
Eduardo César Meure
1   Clinical Pharmacology and Gastroenterology Unit, São Francisco University Medical School, Bragança Paulista, SP, Brazil
,
Edvaldo Capobiango Coelho
1   Clinical Pharmacology and Gastroenterology Unit, São Francisco University Medical School, Bragança Paulista, SP, Brazil
,
Marco Antônio Marchiorett
1   Clinical Pharmacology and Gastroenterology Unit, São Francisco University Medical School, Bragança Paulista, SP, Brazil
,
José Pedrazzoli
1   Clinical Pharmacology and Gastroenterology Unit, São Francisco University Medical School, Bragança Paulista, SP, Brazil
2   Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medical Sciences – UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
02 December 2011 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose:

The study was developed to compare the in vitro dissolution profile of pantoprazole (CAS 102625-70-7) formulations in both The United State Pharmacopeia (USP) apparatus 2 and by applying biorelevant medium. Moreover, an in vitro – in vivo relationship was proposed considering in vivo data from previously published study

Methods:

In vitro dissolution profile were evaluated in biorelevant medium in USP apparatus 2 and 3 and the dissolution curves were either compared by the similarity factor (f2) or a model-independent approach. The fraction of drug dissolved in vitro in apparatus 2 was compared with the fraction of drug absorbed in vivo, which was obtained from a retro-spective in vivo study. An in vitro – in vivo relationship analysis was then applied to elucidate the overall absorption characteristics of formulations

Results:

The dissolution profiles of formulations demonstrated similar disposition in biorelevant medium in both USP apparatus 2 and 3. The dissolution profiles were described by f2 model in apparatus 2 and Weibull's function in apparatus 3. The vitro–in vivo relationship analysis showed that the formulation exhibited permeability rate-limiting absorption.

Conclusion:

Biorelevant medium in both USP apparatus 2 and 3 may be used as a tool to predict in vivo disposition of formulations of pantoprazole. Furthermore, it can be argued that biowaiver can be granted for enteric coated formulations of pantoprazole on the basis of in vitro dissolution profile.

Key word

Biopharmaceutics classification system - Biorelevant dissolution testing - CAS 102625-70-7 - In vitro–in vivo correlation - Pantoprazole
 

  • References

  • 1 Galia E, Nicolaides E, Horter D, Lobenberg R, Reppas C, Dressman JB.. Evaluation of various dissolution media for predicting in vivo performance of class I and II drugs. Pharm Res. 1998; 15: 698-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Klein S, Stein J, Dressman JB.. Site-specific delivery of anti-inflammatory drugs in the gastrointestinal tract: an in-vitro release model. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2005; 57: 709-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Klein S. Biorelevant Dissolution Test Methods for Modified Release Dosage Forms. Frankfurt (Main): Institut für Pharmazeutische Technologie, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität;; 2005: 1-280
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Shah S, Lesko LJ. Current challenges and future regulatory directions in in vitro dissolution. Drug Inform J. 1995; 19: 885-91
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Guidance for Industry Extended Release Oral Dosage Forms: Development, Evaluation, and Application of In Vitro/In Vivo Correlations. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); October. 1997
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Polli JE. IVIVR vs. IVIVC. Dissol Technol. 2000; 7: 6-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Guidance for Industry Dissolution Testing for Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms U.S Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); October. 1997
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Guia para validação de métodos analíticos e bioanalíticos. Brazil: Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA); April 2003.
    PubMed
  • 9 USP 29 United States Pharmacopeia. Rockville (MD): United State Pharmacopeia Convention, Inc. 2006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Li J, Yang L, Ferguson SM, Hudson TJ, Watanabe S, Katsuma M et al. In vitro evaluation of dissolution behavior for α colon-specific drug delivery system (CODESTM) in multi-pH media using United States pharmacopeia apparatus II and III. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech. 2002; 3: E33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cacace J, Reilly EE, Amann A. Comparison of the dissolution of metaxalone tablets (Skelaxin) using USP appara-tus 2 and 3. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech. 2004; 5: E6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Amidon GL, Lennernas H, Shah VP, Crison JR. A theoretical basis for a biopharmaceutic drug classification: the correlation of in vitro drug product dissolution and in vivo bio-availability. Pharm Res. 1995; 15: 413-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Guidance for Industry, Waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms based on a biopharmaceutics classification system. US Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); October 2000.
    PubMed
  • 14 Jantratid E, Prakongpan S, Amidon GL, Dressman JB. Feasibility of biowaiver extension to biopharmaceutics classification system class III drug products: cimetidine. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2006; 45: 385-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lindenberg M, Kopp S, Dressman JB. Classification of orally administered drugs on the World Health Organization model list of essencial medicines according to the biophar-maceutics classification system. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2004; 58: 265-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Blume HH, Schug BS. The biopharmaceutics classification system (BCS): class III drugs – better candidates for BA/BE waiver? Eur J Pharm Sci. 1999; 9: 117-21
    PubMed
  • 17 Cheng CL, Yu LX, Lee HL, Yang CY, Lue CS, Chou CH. Biowaiver extension potential to BCS class III high solubility-low permeability drugs: bridging evidence for metformin immediate-release tablet. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2004; 22: 297-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vogelpoel H, Welink J, Amidon GL, Junginger HE, Midha KK, Möller H et al. Biowaiver monographs for immediate release solid oral dosage forms based on biopharmaceutics classification system (BCS) literature data: verapamil hydrochloride, propranolol hydrochloride, and atenolol. Pharm Sci. 2004; 93: 1945-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kortejärvi H, Yliperttula M, Dressman JB, Junginger HE, Midha KK, Shah VP et al. Biowaiver monographs for immediate release solid oral dosage forms: ranitidine hydro-chloride. Pharm Sci. 2005; 94: 1617-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gardiner SJ, Begg EJ. Pharmacogenetics, drug-metaboliz-ing enzymes and clinical practice. Pharmacol Res. 2006; 58: 521-90
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Campos DR, Vieira NR, Bernasconi G, Barros FAP, Meuer EC, Marchioretto MA et al. Bioequivalence of two enteric coated formulations of pantoprazole in healthy volunteers under fasting and fed conditions. Arzneimittelforschung. 2007; 57 ((6)) 309-14
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Klein S, Butler J, Hempenstall JM, Reppas C, Dressman JB. Media to simulate the postprandial stomach I. Matching the physicochemical characteristics of standard breakfasts. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2004; 56: 605-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shah VP, Tsong Y, Sathe P. Liu JP. In vitro dissolution profile comparison-statistics and analysis of the similarity fac-tor, f2 Pharm Res. 1998; 15: 889-96
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 International Conference of Harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceutical for human use. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Validation of analytical procedures: text and methodology Q2(R1); 1996.
    PubMed
  • 25 Guia para planejamento e realização da etapa estatística de estudos de biodisponibilidade relativa/bioequivalência. Brazil: Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA); April 2003.
    PubMed
  • 26 Polli JE, Crison JR, Amidon GL. Novel approach to the analysis of in vitro-in vivo relationships. J Pharm Sci. 1996; 85: 753-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dissolution methods for drug products [FDA website] Rockville (MD): Food and Drug Administration (US). 2008 [cited 2008 June 24]. Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/dissolution
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rohrs BR, Burch-Clarck DL, Witt MJ, Stelzer DJ. USP dissolution apparatus 3 (reciprocating cylinder): instrument parameter effects on drug release from sustained release formulations. J Pharm Sci. 1995; 84: 922-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cheng CL, Yu LX, Lee HL, Yang CY, Lue CS, Chou CH. Biowaiver extension potencial to BCS class III high-solubility low-permeability drugs: bridging evidence for metformin immediate-release tablet. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2004; 22: 297-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ekpe A, Jacobsen T. Effect of various salts on the stability of lansoprazole, omeprazole and pantoprazole as determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1999; 25: 1057-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Polli JE. in vitro–in vivo relationships of several “immediate” release tablets. Adv Exp Med Biol. 423: 191-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kortejärvi H, Yliperttula M, Dressman JB, Junginger HE, Midha KK, Shah VP et al. Biowaiver monographs for immediate release solid oral dosage forms: ranitidine hydro-chloride. J Pharm Sci. 2005; 94: 1617-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Jantratid E, Prakongpan S, Dressman JB, Amidon GL, Junginger HE, Midha KK et al. Biowaiver monographs for immediate release solid oral dosage forms: cimetidine. Pharm Sci. 2006; 95: 974-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 FIP International Pharmaceutical Federation website. 2008 [cited 2008 June 24]. Available from: http://www.fip.org/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lindenberg M, Kopp S, Dressman JB. Classification of orally administered drugs on the World Health Organization model list of essential medicines according to the biophar-maceutics classification system. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2004; 58: 265-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kasim NA, Whitehouse M, Ramachandran C, Bermejo M, Lennernas H, Hussain AS et al. Molecular Properties of WHO Essential Drugs and Provisional Biopharmaceutical Classification. Mol Pharm. 2004; 1: 85-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar