Logic of Selecting Suitable Dissolution Parameters in New Drug Formulations Based on A BCS Approach

Document Type : Research article


1 Departamento de Sistemas Biológicos, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco, Mexico City, Mexico.

2 Departamento de Farmacia, Facultad de Química, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.

3 Department of Clinical and Hospital Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Taibah University, AL-Madinah AL-Munawarah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

4 Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Damanhour University, Damanhour, Egypt.


Since the biopharmaceutical quality of generic drug formulations depends on the quality of the reference products and also information about the in-vitro release performance of drugs under different conditions is scarce in the literature, a dissolution study of four reference tablets was performed. Each drug was representative of one Class of the Biopharmaceutical Classification System. The in-vitro release performance of propranolol-HCl, carbamazepine, ranitidine-HCl, and metronidazole was evaluated using a USP basket and paddle apparatus at different agitation rates (50, 75, and 100 rpm) with two doses of each drug. In all experiments, pharmacopeial dissolution media was used and the samples were taken with automatic equipment at specific times up to 60 min, except for propranolol-HCl, for which the samples were taken up to 30 min. The dissolution profiles were compared by model-independent, model-dependent, and ANOVA-based comparisons. The three methods of data comparison showed that low vs. high doses were significantly different (P < 0.05), which may influence cases in which biowaivers of propranolol-HCl and ranitidine-HCl are requested. Additionally, the results showed that despite different hydrodynamic environments produced by the basket and paddle apparatus, under certain conditions, both types of equipment generated comparable in-vitro results. Variables such as the dose, agitation rate, and type of dissolution apparatus are important factors to consider in designing dissolution tests for drug products. This information can be used to test a new dosage when there is no pharmacopeial method available to perform a dissolution study. Further researches on the in-vitro release performance of reference drug products are required.

Graphical Abstract

Logic of Selecting Suitable Dissolution Parameters in New Drug Formulations Based on A BCS Approach


Main Subjects

(1) Shohin IE, Grebenkin DY, Malashenko EA, Stanishevskii YM and Ramenskaya GV. A brief reviewof the FDA Dissolution Method Database. Dissolut.Technol. (2016) 23: 6–10.
(2) Shah VP, Gurbarg M, Noory A, Dighe S and SkellyJP. Influence of higher rates of agitation on releasepatterns of immediate-release drug products. J.Pharm. Sci. (1992) 81: 500−3.
(3) Gjellan K, Magnusson AB, Ahlgren R, Callmer K,Christensen DF, Espmarker U, Jacobsen L, JarringK, Lundin G, Nilsson G and Waltersson JO. A collaborative study of the in-vitro dissolution of acetylsalicylic acid gastro-resistant capsules comparingthe flow-through cell method with the USP paddlemethod. Int. J. Pharm. (1997) 151: 81−90.
(4) Costa P and Sousa Lobo JM. Influence of dissolution medium agitation on the release profiles of sustained-release tablets. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. (2001)27: 811−7.
(5) Morihara M, Aoyagi N, Kaniwa N, Katori N and Kojim S. Hydrodynamic flows around tablets in different pharmacopeial dissolution tests. Drug Dev. Ind.
Pharm. (2002) 28: 655−62.
(6) Scholz A, Kostewicz E, Abrahamsson B and Dressman JB. Can the USP paddle method be used to represent in-vivo hydrodynamics? J. Pharm. Pharmacol. (2003) 55: 443−51.
(7) FDA Guidance for Industry. Waiver on In-vivo Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms Based on aBiopharmaceutics Classification System. (December2017). Available from URL: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm070246.pdf.
(8) WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. 20th ed.(March 2017). Available from: URL: http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/20th_EML2017.pdf?ua=1.
(9) Lindenberg M, Kopp S and Dressman JB. Classification of orally administered drugs on the WorldHealth Organization model list of essential medicines according to the biopharmaceutics classification system. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. (2004) 58:265−78.
(10) Kortejärvi H, Yliperttula M, Dressman JB, Junginger HE, Midha KK, Shah VP and Barends DM. 485In-vitro Release of Reference ProductsBiowaiver monographs for immediate release solid oral dosage forms: ranitidine hydrochloride. J.Pharm. Sci. (2005) 94: 1617−25.
(11) Rediguieri CF, Porta V, Nunes DSG, Nunes TM,Junginger HE, Kopp S, Midha KK, Shah VP,Stavchansky S, Dressman JB and Barends DM.Biowaiver monographs for immediate release solidoral dosage forms: metronidazole. J. Pharm. Sci.(2011) 100: 1618−27.
(12) Kasim NA, Whitehouse M, Ramachandran C, Bermejo M, Lennernäs H, Hussain AS, Junginger HE,Stavchansky SA, Midha KK, Shah VP and AmidonGL. Molecular properties of the WHO essential drugs and provisional biopharmaceutical classification. Mol. Pharm. (2004) 1: 85−96.
(13) Dahan A, Miller JM and Amidon GL. Prediction ofsolubility and permeability class membership: provisional BCS classification of the world’s top oraldrugs. AAPS J. (2009) 11: 740−6.
(14) Therapeutic System Research Laboratories TSRLinc. Available from: URL: http://www.tsrlinc.net/search.cfm.
(15) Vogelpoel H, Welink J, Amidon GL, Junginger HE,Midha KK, Möller H, Olling M, Shah VP and Barends DM. Biowaiver monographs for immediaterelease solid oral dosage forms based on biopharmaceutical classification system (BCS) literature data.Verapamil hydrochloride, propanolol hydrochloride,
and atenolol. J. Pharm. Sci. (2004) 93: 1945−56.
(16) Cappola ML. A better dissolution method for ranitidine tablets USP. Pharm. Dev. Technol. (2001) 6:11–7.
(17) Medina JR, Ortiz HD, Hurtado M and Domínguez-Ramírez AM. Influence of dose and the USP
basket and flow-through cell dissolution apparatuses in the release kinetics of metronidazole immediate-release products. Int. J. Res. Pharm. Sci. (2014)5: 137−46.
(18) Costa P and Sousa Lobo JM. Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci.(2001) 13: 123−33.
(19) Gao Z. Mathematical modeling of variables involved in dissolution testing. J. Pharm. Sci. (2011)100: 4934−42.
(20) Dash S, Murthy PN, Nath L and Chowdhury P.Kinetic modeling on drug release from controlleddrug delivery systems. Acta Pol. Pharm. (2010) 67:217−23.
(21) Adams E, Coomans D, Smeyers-Verbeke J andMassart DL. Non-linear mixed effects models forthe evaluation of dissolution profiles. Int. J. Pharm.(2002) 240: 37−53.
(22) Papadopoulou V, Kosmidis K, Vlachou M andMacheras P. On the use Weibull function for thediscernment of the drug release mechanisms. Int. J.Pharm. (2006) 309: 44−50.
(23) Yuksel N, Kanik AE and Baykara T. Comparison ofdissolution profiles by ANOVA-based, model-dependent and -independent methods. Int. J. Pharm.(2000) 209: 57−67.
(24) Polli JE, Singh Rekhi G, Augsburger LL and ShahVP. Methods to compare dissolution profiles anda rationale for wide dissolution specifications formetoprolol tartrate tablets. J. Pharm. Sci. (1997)86: 690−700.
(25) Haque T, Taludker MMU, Laila S, Fatema K, Shahidul M and Reza MS. Model dependent and independent approaches to compare in-vitro releaseprofiles from ethylcellulose and eudragit L100based matrix tablets. Dhaka Univ. J. Pharm. Sci.(2009) 8: 89−98.
(26) COFEPRIS. Listado Actualizado de Medicamentosde Referencia 2017/10, Mexico. Available from:URL: https://www.gob.mx/cofepris/documentos/listado-actualizado-de-medicamentos-de-referencia-2017-10?idiom=es.
(27) The United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary USP 40-NF 35. The United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc. Rockville. MD (2017).
(28) Farmacopea de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 11aed. Comisión Permanente de la Farmacopea de losEstados Unidos Mexicanos. (2014).
(29) Medina JR, Hernandez J and Hurtado M. In-vitrostudies of carbamazepine tablets and benzoyl metronidazole suspensions using the flow-through cellapparatus and simulated gastrointestinal fluids. Int.J. App. Pharm. (2017) 9: 54−60.
(30) Raju V and Murthy R. Development and validation of new discriminative dissolution methods forcarvedilol tablets. Ind. J. Pharm. Sci. (2011) 73:527−36.
(31) Zhang Y, Huo M, Zhou J, Zou A, Li W, Yao C andXie S. DDSolver: an add-in program for modelingand comparison of drug dissolution profiles. AAPSJ. (2010) 12: 263−71.
(32) Missaghi S and Fasshi R. Release characterizationof dimenhydranate from an eroding and swellingmatrix: selection of appropriate dissolution apparatus. Int. J. Pharm. (2005) 293: 35−42.
(33) Adrover A, Pedacchia A, Petralito S and Spera R.In-vitro dissolution testing of oral thin films: acomparison between USP 1, USP 2 apparatusesand a new millifluidic flow-through device. Chem.Eng. Res. Des. (2015) 95: 173−8.
(34) Kortejärvi H, Shawahna R, Koski A, Malkki J, Ojala K and Yliperttula M. Very rapid dissolution isnot needed to guarantee bioequivalence for biopharmaceutics classification system (BCS) I drugs. 486Medina-López R et al. / IJPR (2020), 19 (1): ***-***J. Pharm. Sci. (2010) 99: 621–5.
(35) Shokhin IE, Ramenskaya GV, Vasilenko GF, Malalchenko EA. Assessment of the possibility of usingcomparative in-vitro dissolution kinetics (biowaiver) instead of in-vivo bioequivalence evaluationfor establishing the interchangeability of genericdrugs. Pharm. Chem. J. (2011) 45: 107–9.
(36) Lee H, Park SA and Sah H. Surfactant effects upondissolution patterns of carbamazepine immediaterelease tablet. Arch. Pharmacal. Res. (2005) 28:120–6.
(37) Oyetunde OO, Tayo F, Akinleye MO and Aina BA.In-vitro equivalence studies of generic metforminhydrochloride tablets and propranolol hydrochloride tablets under biowaiverconditions in LagosState, Nigeria. Dissolut. Technol. (2012) 19: 51–5.
(38) Anderson NH, Bauer M, Boussac N, Khan-MalekR, Munden P and Sardaro M. An evaluation offit factors and dissolution efficiency for the comparison of in-vitro dissolution profiles. J. Pharm.Biomed. Anal. (1998) 17: 811−22.
(39) Demirtürk E and Öner L. In-vitro-in-vivo correlations. FABAD J. Pharm. Sci. (2003) 28: 215−24.
(40) Langenbucher F. Linearization of dissolution ratescurves by the Weibull distribution. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. (1972) 24: 979−81.
(41) Jung H, Milán RC, Girard ME, León F and Montoya MA. Bioequivalence study of carbamazepinetablets: in-vitro/in-vivo correlation. Int. J. Pharm.(1997) 152: 37−44.
(42) Medina JR, Salazar DK, Hurtado M, Cortés ARand Domínguez-Ramírez AM. Comparative in-vitro dissolution study of carbamazepine immediate-release products using the USP paddles methodand the flow-through cell system. Saudi Pharm. J.(2014) 22: 141−7.
(43) Montgomery DC. Design and Analysis of Experiments. 5th ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York(2001) 192−201.
(44) Mittapalli PK, Suresh B, Hussaini SSQ, Rao YMand Apte S. Comparative in-vitro study of six carbamazepine products. AAPS PharmSciTech (2008)9: 357−65.
(45) Keppel G, Sauffley WH and Tokunaga H. Introduction to Design and Analysis: A Student’s Handbook. 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman and Company, NewYork (1992) 198−206.
(46) Katori N, Aoyagi N and Terao T. Estimation of agitation intensity in the GI tract in humans and dogsbased on in-vitro/in-vivo correlation. Pharm. Res.(1995) 12: 237−43.