Berthelsen Ragna, Holm René, Jacobsen Jette, Kristensen Jakob, Abrahamsson Bertil, Müllertz Anette
†Department of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
‡Biologics and Pharmaceutical Science, H. Lundbeck A/S, Valby, Denmark.
Mol Pharm. 2015 Apr 6;12(4):1062-71. doi: 10.1021/mp500545k. Epub 2015 Mar 6.
Selection of excipients for drug formulations requires both intellectual and experimental considerations as many of the used excipients are affected by physiological factors, e.g., they may be digested by pancreatic enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract. In the present paper we have looked systematically into the differences between Kolliphor ELP, EL, and RH40 and how they affect the bioavailability of fenofibrate, through pharmacokinetic studies in rats and in vitro lipolysis studies. The study design was made as simple as possible to avoid confounding factors, for which reason the tested formulations only comprised an aqueous micellar solution of the model drug (fenofibrate) in varying concentrations (2-25% (w/v)) of the three tested surfactants. Increased concentrations of Kolliphor ELP and EL led to increased fenofibrate AUC0-24h values. For the Kolliphor RH40 formulations, an apparent fenofibrate absorption optimum was seen at 15% (w/v) surfactant, displaying both the highest AUC0-24h and Cmax. The reduced absorption of fenofibrate from the formulation containing the highest level of surfactant (25% w/v) was thought to be caused by some degree of trapping within Kolliphor RH40 micelles. In vitro, Kolliphor ELP and EL were found to be more prone to digestion than Kolliphor RH40, though not affecting the in vivo results. The highest fenofibrate bioavailability was attained from formulations with high Kolliphor ELP/EL levels (25% (w/v)), indicating that these surfactants are the better choice for solubilizing fenofibrate in order to increase the absorption upon oral administration. Due to drug dependent effects of the different types of Kolliphor, more studies are recommended in order to understand which type of Kolliphor is best suited for a given drug.
药物制剂辅料的选择需要综合考虑知识和实验因素,因为许多常用辅料会受到生理因素的影响,例如,它们可能会在胃肠道中被胰酶消化。在本文中,我们通过对大鼠的药代动力学研究和体外脂解研究,系统地研究了聚氧乙烯蓖麻油ELP、EL和RH40之间的差异以及它们如何影响非诺贝特的生物利用度。研究设计尽可能简化以避免混杂因素,因此测试制剂仅包含模型药物(非诺贝特)在三种测试表面活性剂不同浓度(2 - 25%(w/v))下的胶束水溶液。聚氧乙烯蓖麻油ELP和EL浓度的增加导致非诺贝特AUC0 - 24h值升高。对于聚氧乙烯蓖麻油RH40制剂,在表面活性剂浓度为15%(w/v)时观察到非诺贝特的明显吸收最佳值,此时AUC0 - 24h和Cmax均最高。含有最高水平表面活性剂(25% w/v)的制剂中非诺贝特吸收减少被认为是由于在聚氧乙烯蓖麻油RH40胶束内存在一定程度的截留。在体外,发现聚氧乙烯蓖麻油ELP和EL比聚氧乙烯蓖麻油RH40更容易被消化,尽管这并不影响体内结果。高聚氧乙烯蓖麻油ELP/EL水平(25%(w/v))的制剂中非诺贝特生物利用度最高,这表明这些表面活性剂是在口服给药时增溶非诺贝特以增加吸收的更好选择。由于不同类型聚氧乙烯蓖麻油对药物的依赖性影响,建议进行更多研究以了解哪种类型的聚氧乙烯蓖麻油最适合特定药物。