Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 483–488 | Cite as

The Use of BDDCS in Classifying the Permeability of Marketed Drugs

  • Leslie Z. Benet
  • Gordon L. Amidon
  • Dirk M. Barends
  • Hans Lennernäs
  • James E. Polli
  • Vinod P. Shah
  • Salomon A. Stavchansky
  • Lawrence X. Yu


We recommend that regulatory agencies add the extent of drug metabolism (i.e., ≥ 90% metabolized) as an alternate method in defining Class 1 marketed drugs suitable for a waiver of in vivo studies of bioequivalence. That is, ≥ 90% metabolized is an additional methodology that may be substituted for ≥ 90% absorbed. We propose that the following criteria be used to define ≥ 90% metabolized for marketed drugs: Following a single oral dose to humans, administered at the highest dose strength, mass balance of the Phase 1 oxidative and Phase 2 conjugative drug metabolites in the urine and feces, measured either as unlabeled, radioactive labeled or nonradioactive labeled substances, account for ≥ 90% of the drug dosed. This is the strictest definition for a waiver based on metabolism. For an orally administered drug to be ≥ 90% metabolized by Phase 1 oxidative and Phase 2 conjugative processes, it is obvious that the drug must be absorbed. This proposal, which strictly conforms to the present ≥ 90% criteria, is a suggested modification to facilitate a number of marketed drugs being appropriately assigned to Class 1.

Key Words

BCS BDDCS bioequivalence elimination pathways 



Biopharmaceutics Classification System


Biopharmaceutics Drug Disposition Classification System



This work was supported in part by NIH Grant GM 075900.


  1. 1.
    G. L. Amidon, H. Lennernäs, V. P. Shah, and J. R. Crison. A theoretical basis for a biopharmaceutics drug classification: the correlation of in vitro drug product dissolution and in vivo bioavailability. Pharm. Res. 12:413–420 (1995).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, 2000. Retrieved from
  3. 3.
    J. E. Polli, L. X. Yu, J. A. Cook, G. L. Amidon, R. T. Borchardt, B. A. Burnside, P. S. Burton, M. -L. Chen, D. P. Conner, J. Faustino, A. A. Hawi, A. S. Hussain, H. N. Joshi, G. Kwei, V. H. L. Lee, L. J. Lesko, R. A. Lipper, A. E. Loper, S. G. Nerurkar, J. W. Polli, D. R. Sanvordeker, R. Taneja, R. S. Uppoor, C. S. Vattikonda, I. Wilding, and G. Zhang. Summary Workshop Report: Biopharmaceutics Classification System–Implementation Challenges and Extension Opportunities. J. Pharm. Sci. 93:1375–1381 (2004).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Lennernas, O. Ahrenstedt, R. Hallgren, L. Knutson, M. Ryde, and L. Paalzow. Regional jejunal perfusion, a new in vivo approach to study oral drug absorption in man. Pharm. Res. 9:1243–1251 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Lennernäs, L. Knutson, T. Knutson, L. Lesko, T. Salomonson, and G. L. Amidon. Human effective permeability data for atenolol, metoprolol and carbamazepine to be used in the proposed biopharmaceutical classification for IR-products. Pharm. Res. 12:S295 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Lennernas, L. Knutson, T. Knutson, L. Lesko, T. Salomonson, and G. L. Amidon. Human effective permeability data for furosemide, hydrochlorothiazide, ketoprofen and naproxen to be used in the proposed biopharmaceutical classification for IR-products. Pharm. Res. 12:S396 (1995).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Lennernäs, Ö. Ahrenstedt, and A-L. Ungell. Intestinal drug absorption during induced net water absorption in man: A mechanistic study using antipyrine, atenolol and enalaprilat. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol 37:589–596 (1994).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Nillson, U. Fagerholm, and H. Lennernäs. The influence of net water absorption on the permeability of antipyrine and levodopa in the human jejunum. Pharm. Res. 11:1541–1545 (1994).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U. Fagerholm, L. Borgström, Ö. Ahrenstedt, and H. Lennernäs. The lack of effect of induced net fluid absorption on the in vivo permeability of terbutaline in the human jejunum. J. Drug Targeting 3:191–200 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Nilsson, U. Fagerholm, and H. Lennernäs. The influence of net water absorption on the permeability of antipyrine and levodopa in the human jejunum. Pharm. Res. 11:1540–1547 (1994).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Sandstrom, A. Karlsson, L. Knutson, and H. Lennernäs. Jejunal absorption and metabolism of R/S-verapamil in humans. Pharm. Res. 15:856–862 (1998).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Takamatsu, L. S. Welage, N. M. Idkaidek, D. Y. Liu, P. I. Lee, Y. Hayashi, J. K. Rhie, H. Lennernäs, J. L. Barnett, V. P. Shah, L. Lesko, and G. L. Amidon. Human intestinal permeability of piroxicam, propranolol, phenylalanine, and PEG 400 determined by jejunal perfusion. Pharm. Res. 14:1127–1132 (1997).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Takamatsu, O. N. Kim, L. S. Weage, N. M. Idkaidek, Y. Hayashi, J. Barnett, R. Yamamoto, E. Lipka, H. Lennernäs, A. Hussain, L. Lesko, and G. L. Amidon. Human jejunal permeability of two polar drugs: cimetidine and ranitidine. Pharm. Res. 18:742–744 (2001).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    X. Cao, S. T. Gibbs, L. Fang, H. A. Miller, C. P. Landowski, H-C. Shin, H. Lennernäs, Y. Zhong, G. L. Amidon, L. X Yu, and D. Sun. Why is it challenging to predict intestinal drug absorption and oral bioavailability in human using rat model. Pharm. Res. 23:1675–1686 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    C-Y. Wu, and L. Z. Benet. Predicting drug disposition via application of BCS: transport/absorption/elimination interplay and development of a Biopharmaceutics Drug Disposition Classification System. Pharm. Res. 22:11–23 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Takagi, C. Ramachandran, M. Bermejo, S. Yamashita, L. X. Yu, and G. L. Amidon. A provisional biopharmaceutical classification of the top 200 oral drug products in the United States, Great Britain, Spain and Japan. Mol. Pharm. 3:631–643 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. A. Kasim, M. Whitehouse, C. Ramachandran, M. Bermejo, H. Lennernäs, A. S. Houssain, H. E. Junginger, S. A. Stavchansky, K. K. Midha, V. P. Shah, and G. L. Amidon. Molecular properties of WHO essential drugs and provisional biopharmaceutical classification. Mol. Pharm 1:85–96 (2004).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    U. Fagerholm, M. Johansson, and H. Lennernäs. Comparison between permeability coefficients in rat and human jejunum. Pharm. Res. 13:1336–1342 (1996).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Tolle-Sander, and J. E. Polli. Method considerations for Caco-2 permeability assessment in the Biopharmaceutics Classification System. Pharmacop. Forum 28:164–172 (2002).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. E. Polli, and M. J. Ginski. Human drug absorption kinetics and comparison to Caco-2 monolayer permeabilities. Pharm. Res. 15:47–52 (1998).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. A. Lentz, J. Hayashi, L. J. Lucisano, and J. E. Polli. Development of a more rapid, reduced serum culture system for Caco-2 monolayers and application to biopharmaceutics classification system. Int. J. Pharm. 200:41–51 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Sahin, J.M. Custodio and L.Z. Benet. Transepithelial transport of verapamil across Caco-2 cell monolayers. AAPS Journal. 2007; 9(S2). Abstract T3480. Available from
  23. 23.
    L. X. Yu, G. L. Amidon, J. E. Polli, H. Zhao, M. U. Mehta, D. P. Conner, V. P. Shah, L. J. Lesko, M. L. Chen, V. H. Lee, and A. S. Hussain. Biopharmaceutics classification system: the scientific basis for biowaiver extensions. Pharm. Res. 19:921–925 (2002).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Yazdanian, K. Briggs, C. Jankovsky, and A. Hawi. The “high solubility” definition of the current FDA Guidance on Biopharmaceutical Classification System may be too strict for acidic drugs. Pharm. Res. 21:293–299 (2004).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    E. Rinaki, A. Dokoumetzidis, G. Valsami, and P. Macheras. Identification of biowaivers among Class II drugs: theoretical justification and practical examples. Pharm. Res. 21:1567–1572 (2004).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    U. Fagerholm. Evaluation and suggested improvements of the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS). J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 59:751–757 (2007).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    H. H. Blume, and B. S. Schug. The biopharmaceutics classification system (BCS): class III drugs - better candidates for BA/BE waiver? Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 9:117–121 (1999).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    World Health Organization, Multisource (Generic) Pharmaceutical Products: Guidelines on Registration Requirements to Establish Interchangeability. WHO Technical Report Series, No. 937,2006, Annex 7, 347–390 (2006).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Y. Zhang, and L. Z. Benet. The gut as a barrier to drug absorption. Clin. Pharmacokinet 40:159–168 (2001).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    S. Winiwarter, F. Ax, H. Lennernäs, A. Hallberg, C. Pettersson, and A. Karlén. Hydrogen bonding descriptors in the prediction of human in vivo intestinal permeability. J. Molec. Graphics Model 21:273–287 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie Z. Benet
    • 1
  • Gordon L. Amidon
    • 2
  • Dirk M. Barends
    • 3
  • Hans Lennernäs
    • 4
  • James E. Polli
    • 5
  • Vinod P. Shah
    • 6
  • Salomon A. Stavchansky
    • 7
  • Lawrence X. Yu
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Biopharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PharmaceuticsUniversity of Michigan, College of PharmacyAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.RIVM-National Institute for Public Health and the EnvironmentBilthovenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Pharmacy, Division of Biopharmaceutics and PharmacokineticsUniversity of UppsalaUppsalaSweden
  5. 5.Department of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of Maryland, School of PharmacyBaltimoreUSA
  6. 6.North PotomacUSA
  7. 7.Pharmaceutics Division, College of PharmacyUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  8. 8.Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchOffice of Pharmaceutical ScienceSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations