A Modern View of Excipient Effects on Bioequivalence: Case Study of Sorbitol
To examine the effect of common excipients such as sugars (sorbitol versus sucrose) on bioequivalence between pharmaceutical formulations, using ranitidine and metoprolol as model drugs.
Two single-dose, replicated, crossover studies were first conducted in healthy volunteers (N = 20 each) to compare the effect of 5 Gm of sorbitol and sucrose on bioequivalence of 150 mg ranitidine or 50 mg metoprolol in aqueous solution, followed by a single-dose, nonreplicated, crossover study (N = 24) to determine the threshold of sorbitol effect on bioequivalence of 150 mg ranitidine in solution.
Ranitidine Cmax and AUC(0–∞) were decreased by ∼50% and 45%, respectively, in the presence of sorbitol versus sucrose. Similarly, sorbitol reduced metoprolol Cmax by 23% but had no significant effect on AUC(0–∞). An appreciable subject-by-formulation interaction was found for ranitidine Cmax and AUC(0–∞), as well as metoprolol Cmax. Sorbitol decreased the systemic exposure of ranitidine in a dose-dependent manner and affected bioequivalence at a level of 1.25 Gm or greater.
As exemplified by sorbitol, some common excipients have unexpected effect on bioavailability/bioequivalence, depending on the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the drug, as well as the type and amount of the excipient present in the formulation. More research is warranted to examine other ‘common’ excipients that may have unintended influence on bioavailability/bioequivalence.
Key wordsbioavailability bioequivalence excipient permeability sorbitol
This work was supported, in part, by a contract from the Food and Drug Administration to the University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee. The authors would like to thank Lawrence Lesko, Rabindra Patnaik and Lawrence Yu for their helpful discussion on the related topics during the early phase of this investigation.
- 2.U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for Industry: Waiver of In Vivo Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms Based on a Biopharmaceutics Classification System, Office of Training and Communications, Division of Communications Management, Drug Information Branch, HFD-210, Rockville Maryland 20857, August 2000.Google Scholar
- 19.D. Farthing, K. L. R. Brouwer, I. Fakhry, and D. Sica. Solid-phase extraction and determination of ranitidine in human plasma by a high-performance liquid chromatographic method utilizing midbore chromatography. J. Chromatogr. B. 688:350–353 (1997).Google Scholar
- 20.B. Mistry, J. Leslie, and N. E. Eddington. A sensitive assay of metoprolol and its metabolite α-hydroxy metoprolol in human plasma and determination of dextromethorphan and its metabolite dextrorphan in urine with high performance liquid chromatography and fluorometric detection. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 16:1041–1049 (1998).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence, Office of Training and Communications, Division of Communications Management, Drug Information Branch, HFD-210, Rockville Maryland 20857, January 2001.Google Scholar
- 25.A. N. Wick, M. C. Almen, and L. Joseph. Metabolism of sorbitol. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 40:542–544 (1951).Google Scholar
- 30.J. S. Hyams. Sorbitol intolerance: an unappreciated cause of functional gastrointestinal complaints. Gastroenterol. 84:30–33 (1983).Google Scholar
- 31.D. B. Rosenberg, N. K. Jain, M. J. Ulahannan, et al. Sorbitol intolerance in adults and its relationship to lactose intolerance. Gastroenterol. 86:1356 (1984).Google Scholar
- 40.D. J. Kazierad, K. D. Schlanz, and M. B. Bottorff. Beta blockers. In W. E. Evans, J. J. Schentag, and W. J. Jusko (eds.), Applied Pharmacokinetics — Principles of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 3rd ed, Applied Therapeutics, Vancouver, WA, 1995, pp. 24–31.Google Scholar
- 41.D. L. Bourdet, J. B. Pritchard, and D. R. Thakker. Differential substrate and inhibitory activities of ranitidine and famotidine toward human organic cation transporter 1 (hOCT1; SLC22A1), hOCT2 (SLC22A2), and hOCT3 (SLC22A3). J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 315:1288–1297 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.U. Klotz and S. Walker. Biliary excretion of H2 receptor antagonists. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 29:91–92 (1990).Google Scholar
- 43.N. Takamatsu, L. S. Welage, Y. Hayashi, R. Yamamoto, J. L. Barnett, V. P. Shah, L. J. Lesko, C. Ramachandran, and G. L. Amidon. Variability in cimetidine absorption and plasma double peaks following oral administration in the fasted state in humans: correlation with antral gastric motility. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 53:37–47 (2002).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.A. Minocha, E. P. Krenzelok, and D. A. Spyker. Dosage recommendations for activated charcoal–sorbitol treatment. Clin. Toxicol. 23:579–587 (1985).Google Scholar
- 45.M. J. Ellenhorn and D. G. Barceloux. Medical Toxicology Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning. Elsevier, New York, 1988, p. 9.Google Scholar
- 46.J. Glauser. Tricyclic antidepressant poisoning. Clevel. Clin. J. Med. 67:704–719 (2000).Google Scholar
- 56.Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. In J. G. Hardman and L. E. Limbird (eds.-in-chief), P. B. Molinoff and R. W. Ruddon (eds.), A. G. Gilman (consulting ed.), 9th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995, p. 1712.Google Scholar
- 58.Digestion and absorption in the gastrointestinal tract. Chapter 65. In A. C. Guyton and J. E. Hall (eds.), Textbook of Medicinal Physiology, 9th ed, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1996, p. 834.Google Scholar
- 60.H. A. Krebs. Some general considerations concerning the use of carbohydrates in parenteral nutrition. In I. D. A. Johnston (ed.), Advances in Parenteral Nutrition, MTP, Lancaster, 1978, pp. 23–28.Google Scholar