Advertisement

Pharmacokinetic characterization of controlled-release formulations

  • V. W. Steinijans
Article

Summary

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”.

Keywords

Pharmacokinetics controlled-release formulations in-vitro/in-vivo relationship steady state food effects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Ayd, F.J. (1974): Single daily dose of antidepressants (editorial). JAMA, 230, 263–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Porter A.M. (1969): Drug defaulting in a general practice. Br. Med. J., 1, 218–222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kleinbloesem C.H., van Brummelen P, Breimer D.D. (1987): Nifedipine, relationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Clin. Pharmacokinet., 12, 12–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 6.
    Junginger H. (1987): Studies on bioavailability and bioequivalence — APV guideline. Drugs made in Germany, 30, 161–166.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meier J. Nuesch E, Schmidt R. (1974): Pharmacokinetic criteria for the evaluation of retard formulations. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol, 7, 429–432.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonkman J.H.G., Berg W.C., Grimberg N., De Vries K., De Zeeuw R.A., Schoenmaker R. (1981): Disposition and clinical pharmacokinetics of theophylline after administration of a new sustained release tablet. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 21, 39–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steinijans V.W., Trautmann H., Johnson E., Beier W. (1987): Theophylline steady- state pharmacokinetics: recent concepts and their application in chronotherapy of reactive airway diseases. Chronobiol. Int., 4, 331–347.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Riegelman S., Collier P. (1980): The application of statistical moment theory to the evaluation of in vivo dissolution time and absorption time. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm., 8, 509–534.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yamaoka K., Nakagawa T., Uno T. (1978): Statistical moments in pharmacokinetics. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm, 6, 547–558.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wagner J.G., Nelson E. (1963): Per cent absorbed time plots derived from blood level and/or urinary excretion data. J. Pharm. Sci., 52, 610–611.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Loo J.C.K., Riegelman S. (1968): New method for calculating the intrinsic absorption rate of drugs J. Pharm. Sci. 57, 918–928.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Vaughan D.P., Dennis M. (1978): Mathematical basis of point — area deconvolution method for determining in vivo imput functions, J. Pharm. Sci., 67, 663–665.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tucker G (1983): The determination of in vivo drug absorption rate. Acta Pharm. Technol., 29, 159–164.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirsten R., Nelson K., Steinijans V.W., Zech K. Haerlin R. (1988): Clinical pharmacokinetics of Urapidil. Clin. Pharmacokinet., 14, 129–140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steinijans V.W., Schulz H.U., Boehm A., Beier W. (1987): Absolute bioavailability of theophylline from a sustained — release formulation using different intravenous reference infusions. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 33, 523–526.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boxenbaum H. (1984): Pharmacokinetic determinants in the design and evaluation of sustained — release dosage forms: Pharm. Res. 2, 82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 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
  22. 22.
    Schuirmann D.J. (1987): A comparison of the two one — sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm., 15, 657–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. W. Steinijans
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of BiometryByk Gulden PharmaceuticalsKonstanzFed. Rep. of Germany

Personalised recommendations