Colón-Useche Sarin, González-Álvarez Isabel, Mangas-Sanjuan Victor, González-Álvarez Marta, Pastoriza Pilar, Molina-Martínez Irene, Bermejo Marival, García-Arieta Alfredo
Engineering: Pharmacokinetics and Pharmaceutical Technology Area, Miguel Hernandez University , 03550 Alicante, Spain.
Pharmacokinetics and Pharmaceutical Technology, Complutense University of Madrid , 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Mol Pharm. 2015 Sep 8;12(9):3167-74. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.5b00076. Epub 2015 Aug 26.
The purpose of this work is to investigate the discriminatory power of the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS)-biowaiver in vitro methodology, i.e., to investigate if a BCS-biowaiver approach would have detected the Cmax differences observed between two zolpidem tablets and to identify the cause of the in vivo difference. Several dissolution conditions were tested with three zolpidem formulations: the reference (Stilnox), a bioequivalent formulation (BE), and a nonbioequivalent formulation (N-BE). Zolpidem is highly soluble at pH 1.2, 4.5, and 6.8. Its permeability in Caco-2 cells is higher than that of metoprolol and its transport mechanism is passive diffusion. None of the excipients (alone or in combination) showed any effect on permeability. All formulations dissolved more than 85% in 15 min in the paddle apparatus at 50 rpm in all dissolution media. However, at 30 rpm the nonbioequivalent formulation exhibited a slower dissolution rate. A slower gastric emptying rate was also observed in rats for the nonbioequivalent formulation. A slower disintegration and dissolution or a delay in gastric emptying might explain the Cmax infra-bioavailability for a highly permeable drug with short half-life. The BCS-biowaiver approach would have declared bioequivalence, although the in vivo study was not conclusive but detected a 14% mean difference in Cmax that precluded the bioequivalence demonstration. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that a slower dissolution rate is more discriminatory and that rotation speeds higher than 50 rpm should not be used in BCS-biowaivers, even if a coning effect occurs.
本研究的目的是调查生物药剂学分类系统(BCS)-生物豁免体外方法的区分能力,即调查BCS-生物豁免方法是否能检测到两种唑吡坦片之间观察到的Cmax差异,并确定体内差异的原因。用三种唑吡坦制剂测试了几种溶出条件:参比制剂(思诺思)、生物等效制剂(BE)和非生物等效制剂(N-BE)。唑吡坦在pH 1.2、4.5和6.8时高度可溶。其在Caco-2细胞中的渗透率高于美托洛尔,其转运机制为被动扩散。所有辅料(单独或组合使用)均未显示对渗透率有任何影响。在所有溶出介质中,所有制剂在桨法装置中以50 rpm转速搅拌15分钟内的溶出度均超过85%。然而,在30 rpm转速下,非生物等效制剂的溶出速率较慢。在大鼠中也观察到非生物等效制剂的胃排空速率较慢。对于半衰期短的高渗透性药物,较慢的崩解和溶出或胃排空延迟可能解释了Cmax低于生物利用度的现象。BCS-生物豁免方法本应判定为生物等效,尽管体内研究尚无定论,但检测到Cmax存在14%的平均差异,这排除了生物等效性的证明。尽管如此,这些发现表明,较慢的溶出速率更具区分性,并且在BCS-生物豁免中不应使用高于50 rpm的转速,即使会出现锥效应。