Pharmacokinetic characterization of controlled-release formulations
- 127 Downloads
The development of controlled — release formulations should be based on a clinico-pharmacological rationale such as increased compliance, reduced side effects and improved efficacy. The pharmacokinetic profile of a controlled — release formulation and its dose regimen should be compared under steady-state conditions with that of an immediate — release formulation or that of another controlled — release formulation. Apart from conventional characteristics such as AUC, tmax and Cmax, alternative characteristics are suggested such as residual concentration at the end of the dose interval, peak — trough fluctuation in steady state, plateau time, statistical moments, in vivo imput functions and intravenous infusion schemes which mimic the concentration / time profile after oral administration of the controlled — release formulation. The pharmacokinetic steady — state profile should be reproduced with and without food, from day to day, and at various dose levels. The in vitro specification should be based on in vivo requirements for “within — product bioequivalence”.
KeywordsPharmacokinetics controlled-release formulations in-vitro/in-vivo relationship steady state food effects
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Koch-Weser J, Schechter P.J. (1979): Slow-release preparations in clinical perspective. In: Prescott L.F., Nimmo W.S. Eds. Drug Absorption. New York, Adis Press, pp. 217–227.Google Scholar
- 5.D’ Alonzo G.E., Smolensky M.H. Feldman S, Gianotti L.A, Emerson M.B, Staudinger H, Steinijans V.W. (1990): Twenty — four — hour function in adult patients with asthma: chronoptimized theophylline therapy once daily in the evening versus conventional twice — daily dosing. Am. Rev. Resp. Dis. (accepted for publication).Google Scholar
- 6.Junginger H. (1987): Studies on bioavailability and bioequivalence — APV guideline. Drugs made in Germany, 30, 161–166.Google Scholar
- 14.Langenbucher F. (1982): Numerical convolution / deconvolution as a tool for correlating in vitro with in vivo drug availability. Pharm. Ind, 44, 1166–1172.Google Scholar
- 16.Tucker G (1983): The determination of in vivo drug absorption rate. Acta Pharm. Technol., 29, 159–164.Google Scholar
- 20.Blume H., Siewert M., Steinijans V.W., Stricker H. (1989): Bioaquivalenz von per os applizierten Retard — Arzneimitteln: Konzeption der Studien und Entscheidung über Austauschbarkeit. Pharm. Ind., 51, 1025–1033.Google Scholar
- 21.Steinijans V.W., Dietrich R., Trautmann H., Sauter R., Benedikt G. (1988): A novel approach to the specification of in — vitro dissolution boundaries based on regulatory requirements for bioequivalence. Arzneim — Forsch. (Drug Res.), 38, 1238 -1240.Google Scholar
- 23.Hauschke D, Steinijans V.W, Diletti E, (1990): A distribution — free procedure for the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. Toxicol. 28 (accepted for publication).Google Scholar
- 24.Steinijan V.W, Hauschke D., (1990): Update on the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 28 (accepted for publication).Google Scholar