Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Colon absorption is a key determinant for the successful development of modified-release (MR) formulations, and the risk that colon absorption may limit the in vivo performance of an MR product can be assessed early by various in vitro tests or by preclinical in vivo regional absorption studies in dogs. Mechanistic physiologically based biopharmaceutics modeling (PBBM) is becoming increasingly accepted to predict in vivo performance and guide formulation development; however, no evaluation of the ability to predict colon absorption has been performed. The purpose of this study was to investigate if regional and colon absorption of drugs in dogs could be predicted with sufficient accuracy using PBBM to enable the replacement of in vivo dog studies in the early assessment of colon absorption limitation risks. This was done by predicting the regional and colon absorption and plasma exposure of 14 drugs after administration to the dog colon according to an a priori approach using the in silico absorption models GI-Sim and GastroPlus. Predictive performance was primarily assessed by comparing observed and predicted plasma concentration–time profiles, AUC 0- t , and the relative bioavailability in the colon ( F rel,colon ) as compared to an oral/duodenal reference. Trends in dependency of prediction performance on predicted fraction absorbed, permeability, and solubility/dissolution rate were also investigated. For GI-Sim, the absolute average fold error (AAFE) values for AUC 0- t and F rel,colon were within a 2-fold prediction error for both solutions (1.88 and 1.51, respectively) and suspensions (1.58 and 1.99, respectively). For GastroPlus, the AAFE values for AUC 0- t and F rel,colon were outside the set 2-fold prediction error limit for accurate predictions for both solutions (3.63 and 2.98, respectively) and suspensions (2.94 and 2.09, respectively). No trends for over- or underprediction were observed for GI-Sim, whereas GastroPlus showed a slight trend for underprediction of both AUC 0- t and F rel,colon for compounds with low permeability. In addition, regional differences in the plasma profiles were qualitatively predicted in the majority of cases for both software. Despite the differences in prediction performance, both models can be considered to predict regional differences in absorption as well as AUC 0- t and F rel,colon with acceptable accuracy in an early development setting. The results of this study indicate that it is acceptable to replace in vivo regional absorption studies in dogs with the evaluated models as a method for the early assessment of the risk for colon absorption limitation of MR drug product candidates.
Colon absorption is a key determinant for the successful development of modified-release (MR) formulations, and the risk that colon absorption may limit the in vivo performance of an MR product can be assessed early by various in vitro tests or by preclinical in vivo regional absorption studies in dogs. Mechanistic physiologically based biopharmaceutics modeling (PBBM) is becoming increasingly accepted to predict in vivo performance and guide formulation development; however, no evaluation of the ability to predict colon absorption has been performed. The purpose of this study was to investigate if regional and colon absorption of drugs in dogs could be predicted with sufficient accuracy using PBBM to enable the replacement of in vivo dog studies in the early assessment of colon absorption limitation risks. This was done by predicting the regional and colon absorption and plasma exposure of 14 drugs after administration to the dog colon according to an a priori approach using the in silico absorption models GI-Sim and GastroPlus. Predictive performance was primarily assessed by comparing observed and predicted plasma concentration–time profiles, AUC 0- t , and the relative bioavailability in the colon ( F rel,colon ) as compared to an oral/duodenal reference. Trends in dependency of prediction performance on predicted fraction absorbed, permeability, and solubility/dissolution rate were also investigated. For GI-Sim, the absolute average fold error (AAFE) values for AUC 0- t and F rel,colon were within a 2-fold prediction error for both solutions (1.88 and 1.51, respectively) and suspensions (1.58 and 1.99, respectively). For GastroPlus, the AAFE values for AUC 0- t and F rel,colon were outside the set 2-fold prediction error limit for accurate predictions for both solutions (3.63 and 2.98, respectively) and suspensions (2.94 and 2.09, respectively). No trends for over- or underprediction were observed for GI-Sim, whereas GastroPlus showed a slight trend for underprediction of both AUC 0- t and F rel,colon for compounds with low permeability. In addition, regional differences in the plasma profiles were qualitatively predicted in the majority of cases for both software. Despite the differences in prediction performance, both models can be considered to predict regional differences in absorption as well as AUC 0- t and F rel,colon with acceptable accuracy in an early development setting. The results of this study indicate that it is acceptable to replace in vivo regional absorption studies in dogs with the evaluated models as a method for the early assessment of the risk for colon absorption limitation of MR drug product candidates.
The objective of this study was to develop an authentic ionic-driven osmotic pump system and investigate the release mechanism, simultaneously exploring the in vitro and in vivo correlation of the ionic-driven osmotic pump tablet. A comparison of the ionic-driven and conventional theophylline osmotic pump, the influence of pH and the amount of sodium chloride on drug release, the relationship between the ionic osmotic pressure and the drug release, and the pharmacokinetics experiment in beagle dogs were investigated. Consequently, the similarity factor (f ) between the novel and conventional theophylline osmotic pump tablet was 60.18, which indicated a similar drug-release behavior. Also, the release profile fitted a zero-order kinetic model. The relative bioavailability of the ionic-driven osmotic pump to the conventional osmotic pump calculated from the AUC was 93.6% and the coefficient (R = 0.9945) confirmed that the ionic-driven osmotic pump exhibited excellent IVIVC. The driving power of the ionic-driven osmotic pump was produced only by ions, which was strongly dependent on the ion strength, and a novel formula for the ionic-driven osmotic pump was derived which indicated that the drug-release rate was proportional to the ionic osmotic pressure and the sodium chloride concentration. Significantly, the formula can predict the drug-release rate and release characteristics of theophylline ionic-driven osmotic pumps, guiding future modification of the ionic osmotic pump.
The law of superposition underpins first-order linear pharmacokinetic relationships. Most drugs, therefore, after a single dose can be described by first-order or linear processes, which can be superposed to understand multiple-dose regimen behavior. However, there are a number of situations where drugs could display behaviors after multiple dosing that leads to capacity-limited or saturation non-linear kinetics and the law of superposition is overruled. This review presents a practical guide to understand the equations and calculations for single and multiple-dosing regimens after intravenous and oral administration. It also provides the pharmaceutical basis for saturation in ADME processes and the consequent changes in the area under the concentration–time curve, which represents drug exposure that can lead to the modulation of efficacy and/or toxic effects. The pharmacokineticist must implicitly understand the principles of superposition, which are a central tenet of drug behavior and disposition during drug development.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.