COMPARISON OF THE USP APPARATUS 2 AND 4 FOR TESTING THE IN VITRO RELEASE PERFORMANCE OF IBUPROFEN GENERIC SUSPENSIONS
Objective: The aim of this study was the comparison of the in vitro release performance of ibuprofen generic suspensions and reference, based on the hydrodynamic environment generated by the flow-through cell method (USP Apparatus 4). Results were compared with those obtained by the use of the USP Apparatus 2.
Methods: The AdvilÂ® suspension (2 g/100 ml) and two generic formulations with the same dose were tested. Dissolution studies were carried out using a USP Apparatus 4 Sotax CE6 with 22.6 mm cells, laminar flow at 16 ml/min, and pH 7.2 phosphate buffer at 37.0Â±0.5 Â°C as dissolution medium. Ibuprofen was quantified spectrophotometrically at 222 nm. The in vitro release of the three drug products were studied using the USP Apparatus 2. The dissolution profiles of generic products were compared with the reference by model-independent, model-dependent, and analysis of variance (ANOVA)-based comparisons.
Results: The dissolution profile of the generic product A was similar to the dissolution profile of reference, only with the use of the USP Apparatus 4. The f2 similarity factor was>50 and no significant differences were found with dissolution efficiency data (*P>0.05). Similar results were found with the comparison of t50% and t63.2% values. Similar dissolution profiles between generic product A and reference were also found with ANOVA-based comparisons.Conclusion: The flow-through cell method was adequate for study the in vitro release of ibuprofen suspensions. It is necessary to evaluate the in vivoperformance of the drug products used in order to estimate the predictability of the proposed methodology.
2. Rivera-Leyva JC, GarcÃa-Flores M, Valladares-MÃ©ndez A, Orozco-Castellanos LM, MartÃnez-Alfaro M. Comparative studies on the dissolution profiles of oral ibuprofen suspensions and commercial tablets using biopharmaceutical classification system criteria. Indian J Pharm Sci 2012;74:312âˆ’8.
3. Kumar L, Deshpande A, Page A. Super generics/improved therapeutic entities: an approach to fulfilling unmet medical needs and extending market exclusivity of generic medicines. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2015;7:25âˆ’9.
4. Lindenberg M, Kopp S, Dressman JB. Classification of orally administered drugs on the World Health Organization model list of essential medicines according to the biopharmaceutics classification system. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2004;58:265âˆ’78.
5. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms based on a Biopharmaceutics Classification System; 2015. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/./Guidances/ucm070246.pdf. [Last accessed on 03 May 2017]
6. United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary USP 40-NF 35; The United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc: Rockville MD; 2017.
7. Al Almeri MN, Nayuni N, Anuil Akumar KG, Perrett D, Tucker A, Johnston A. The differences between the branded and generic medicines using solid dosage forms: in vitro dissolution testing. Results Pharm Sci 2012;2:1âˆ’8.
8. Singh I, Aboul-Enein HY. Advantages of USP apparatus IV (flow-through cell apparatus) in dissolution studies. J Iran Chem Soc 2006;3:220â€“2.
9. Qui S, Wang K, Li M. In vitro dissolution studies of immediate-release and extended release formulations using flow-through cell apparatus 4. Dissolution Technol 2014;21:6âˆ’15.
10. Sunesen VH, Pedersen BL, Kristensen HG, MÃ¼llertz A. In vivo in vitro correlations for a poorly soluble drug, danazol, using the flow-through dissolution method with biorelevant dissolution media. Eur J Pharm Sci 2005;24:305â€“13.
11. Szymanska E, Winnicka K. Comparison of the flow-through cell and paddle methods for testing vaginal tablets containing a poorly water-soluble drug. Trop J Pharm Res 2013;12:39â€“44.
12. Emara LH, Emam MF, Taha NF, El-Ashmawy AA, Mursi NM. In vitro dissolution study of meloxicam immediate release products using flow-through cell (USP apparatus 4) under different operational conditions. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2014;6:254âˆ’60.
13. Fotaki N, Reppas C. The flow through cell methodology in the evaluation of intralumenal drug release characteristics. Dissolution Technol 2005;12:17âˆ’21.
14. Medina JR, GarcÃa CA, Hurtado M, DomÃnguez-RamÃrez AM. In vitro release study of ibuprofen dragees: dose and dissolution apparatus influence. Rev Mex Cienc Farm 2015;46:24âˆ’32.
15. Medina R, Cazares IS, Hurtado M. DomÃnguez-RamÃrez AM. Evaluation of acetaminophen and ibuprofen in tablets by a derivative UV method: characterization of in vitro release using USP apparatuses 2 and 4. Lat Am J Pharm 2017;36:706âˆ’15.
16. Listado de Medicamentos de Referencia. Cofepris. Mexico. Available from: http://codigof.mx/medicamentos-de-referencia-actualizacion-y-lineamientos/. [Last accessed on 21 Mar 2017]
17. Yuksel N, Kanik AE, Baykara T. Comparison of in vitro dissolution profiles by ANOVA-based, model-dependent and independent methods. Int J Pharm 2000;209:57âˆ’67.
18. Zhang Y, Huo M, Zhou J, Zou A, Li W, Yao C, et al. DD solver: an add-in program for modeling and comparison of drug dissolution profiles. AAPS J 2010;12:263âˆ’71.
19. Langenbucher F, Benz D, Kurth W, Moller H, Otz M. Standardized flow-cell method as an alternative to existing pharmacopoeial dissolution testing. Pharm Ind 1989;51:1276âˆ’81.
20. Steffansen B, Brodin B, Und Nielsen C. editors. Molecular Biopharmaceutics. ULLA Pharmacy Series. Pharmaceutical Press; 2010.
21. Fotaki N, Symillides M, Reppas C. In vitro versus canine data for predicting input profiles of isosorbide-5-mononitrate from oral extended release products on a confidence interval basis. Eur J Pharm Sci 2005;24:115âˆ’22.
22. DemirtÃ¼rk E, Ã–ner L. In vitro-in vivo correlations. FABAD J Pharm Sci 2003;28:215âˆ’24.
23. Anderson NH, Bauer M, Boussac N, Khan-Malek R, Munden P, Sardaro M. An evaluation of fit factors and dissolution efficiency for the comparison of in vitro dissolution profiles. J Pharm Biomed Anal 1998;17:811âˆ’22.
24. Papadopoulou V, Kosmidis K, Vlachou M, Macheras P. On the use of the weibull function for the discernment of drug release mechanisms. Int J Pharm 2006;309:44âˆ’50.
25. Scholz A, Kostewicz E, Abrahamsson B, Dressman JB. Can the USP paddle method be used to represent in vivo hydrodynamics? J Pharm Pharmacol 2003;55:443âˆ’51.
26. Langenbucher F. Linearization of dissolution rate curves by the weibull distribution. J Pharm Pharmacol 1972;24:97âˆ’81.
27. Costa P, Sousa Lobo JM. Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles. Eur J Pharm Sci 2001;13:123âˆ’33.
28. Hettiarachchi TW, Wickramaratne DBM, Sedeshika SHT, Niyangoda D, Sakeena MHF, Herath HMDR. Comparative in-vitro evaluation of metformin HCl and paracetamol tablets commercially available in Kandy District, Sri Lanka. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2015;7:520âˆ’4.