DISSOLUTION BEHAVIOR OF CARBAMAZEPINE SUSPENSIONS USING THE USP DISSOLUTION APPARATUS 2 AND THE FLOW-THROUGH CELL METHOD WITH SIMULATED GI FLUIDS
Objective: To characterize the dissolution behaviour of carbamazepine generic suspensions using the USP Dissolution Apparatus 2 and the flow-through cell method with simulated gastrointestinal fluids as dissolution media.
Methods: TegretolÂ® suspension and two generic formulations were tested. Dissolution studies were performed using the USP Apparatus 2 (75 rpm and 900 ml of dissolution medium) and the flow-through cell method (laminar flow at 16 ml/min). Simulated gastric fluid (SGF) (with and without pepsin) and simulated intestinal fluid (SIF) (without pancreatin) at 37.0Â±0.5 Â°C, was used as dissolution media. The quantity of dissolved carbamazepine was determined at 5 min intervals until reaching 60 min, at 285 nm. Percentage dissolved at 60 min, mean dissolution time, dissolution efficiency values (model-independent parameters), as well as t50% and t63.2% were calculated (model-dependent parameters). Values for all parameters were compared between the reference and generic formulations using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) following a Dunnettâ€™s multiple comparison test. Dissolution data were also fitted to different fit models.
Results: Since the first sampling time, the reference product had reached 100% of drug dissolved, which was determined using USP Apparatus 2. Nevertheless, significant differences in the three model-independent parameters of generic products were found (*P<0.05). Dissolution data obtained with the paddle apparatus were fitted to different kinetic equations; however, using the flow-through cell method and SIF without pancreatin, the three drug products were fitted to the same kinetic model (Gompertz). With ANOVA-based comparisons and the flow-through cell method, significant differences were found in dissolution data of generic product A versus reference at all sampling times (*P<0.05). The flow-through cell method and SGF with pepsin were the best options to discriminate among dissolution profiles.Conclusion: The flow-through cell method seems to be an adequate dissolution apparatus to characterize in vitrodissolution performance of Class II drugs manufactured as suspensions. For carbamazepine suspensions, SGF and laminar flow at 16 ml/min were the most appropriate conditions to discriminate among generic formulations. Given the physicochemical characteristics of carbamazepine and the environment in which the drug products were tested, these differences could be of clinical relevance.
2. Shokin IE, Ramenskaya GV, Vasulenko GF, Malalshenko EA. Assessment of the possibility of using comparative in vitro dissolution kinetics (biowaiver) instead of in vitro bioequivalence evaluation for establishing the interchangeability of generic drugs. Pharm Chem J 2011;45:107âˆ’9.
3. Ruiz ME, Gregorini A, Takevi A, VolontÃ© MG. Dissolution studies of generic medications: new evidence of deviations from the transitivity principle. Dissolution Technol 2012;19:13âˆ’24.
4. Al Almeri MN, Nayuni N, Anil Kumar KG, Perrett D. The differences between the branded and generic medicines using solid dosage forms: in vitro dissolution testing. Results Pharma Sci 2012;2:1âˆ’8.
5. Ramesh K, Krishnapriya M, Asha P, Nair SC. Preparation and evaluation of chitosan sodium alginate carbamazepine microspheres. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2017;10:271âˆ’6.
6. 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.
7. Zoeller T, Klein S. Simplified biorelevant media for screening dissolution performance of poorly soluble drugs. Dissolution Technol 2007;14:8âˆ’13.
8. Wang Q, Fotaki N, Mao Y. Biorelevant dissolution: methodology and application in drug development. Dissolution Technol 2009;16:6âˆ’12.
9. Marques MRC, Loebenberg R, Almukainzi M. Simulated biological fluids with possible application in dissolution testing. Dissolution Technol 2011;18:15âˆ’28.
10. 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.
11. 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;21:6-15.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Qureshi SA, Caille G, Brien R, Piccirilli G, Yu V, McGilveray IJ. Application of the flow-through dissolution method for the evaluation of oral formulations of nifedipine. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1994;20:1869âˆ’82.
15. Fotaki N, Reppas C. The flow-through cell methodology in the evaluation of intralumenal drug release characteristics. Dissolution Technol 2005;12:17âˆ’21.
16. Listado de Medicamentos de Referencia, Cofepris, Mexico. Available from: http://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/ attachment /file/ 178695/lMR_2017-07_V001.pdf. [Last accessed on 07 Jul 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 modelling 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. Demirturk E, Oner L. In vitro-in vivo correlations. FABAD J Pharm Sci 2003;28:215âˆ’24.
22. 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.
23. Medina JR, Cortes M, Romo E. Comparison of the USP apparatus 2 and 4 for testing the in vitro release performance of ibuprofen generic suspensions. Int J App Pharm 2017;9:90âˆ’5.
24. Costa P, Sousa Lobo JM. Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles. Eur J Pharm Sci 2001;13:123âˆ’33.
25. Alt A, Potthast H, Moessinger J, SickmÃ¼ller B, Oeser H. Biopharmaceutical characterization of sotalol-containing oral immediate release drug products. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2004;58:145âˆ’50.
26. Malipatil NB, haridas K, Prithvi SD. An overview of biosimilars. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2015;8:23âˆ’7.
27. Emara LH, El-Menshawi BS, Estefan MY. In vitro-in vivo correlation and comparative bioavailability of vincamine in prolonged-release preparations. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2000;26:243âˆ’51.
28. Å tefanic M, Locatelli I, Vrecer F, Sever T, Mrhar A, Bogataj A. The influence of gastric emptying kinetics on the drug release from enteric coated pellets in a fasted state: an in vitro/in vivo correlation. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2012;82:376âˆ’82.