Literature DB >> 24687210

In vitro lipolysis data does not adequately predict the in vivo performance of lipid-based drug delivery systems containing fenofibrate.

Nicky Thomas1, Katharina Richter, Thomas B Pedersen, René Holm, Anette Müllertz, Thomas Rades.   

Abstract

The present study investigated the utility of in vitro lipolysis performance indicators drug solubilization and maximum supersaturation ratio (SR(M)) for their predictive use for the in vivo performance in a minipig model. The commercial Lipanthyl formulation and a series of LbDDS based on identical self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems (SNEDDS) containing 200 mg of fenofibrate, either dissolved or suspended, were subjected to combined gastric (pH 2) and intestinal (pH 6.5) in vitro lipolysis. Based on the solubilization profiles and SRM the rank-order SNEDDS (75% drug load) > super-SNEDDS (150% drug load, dissolved) = SNEDDS suspension (150% drug load, partially suspended) > Lipanthyl was established, with an increased likelihood of drug precipitation above SR(M) > 3. The in vitro performance, however, was not reproduced in vivo in a minipig model as the mean plasma concentration over time curves of all LbDDS were comparable, independent of the initial physical state of the drug. There was no correlation between the area under the solubilization-time curves (AUC(in vitro)) of the intestinal step and the AUC(in vivo). The study suggests careful interpretation of in vitro performance criteria and revision of LbDDS optimization towards increased solubilization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24687210      PMCID: PMC4012058          DOI: 10.1208/s12248-014-9589-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AAPS J        ISSN: 1550-7416            Impact factor:   4.009


  44 in total

1.  In vitro and in vivo performance of novel supersaturated self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems (super-SNEDDS).

Authors:  N Thomas; R Holm; A Müllertz; T Rades
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 9.776

2.  Soluplus® as an effective absorption enhancer of poorly soluble drugs in vitro and in vivo.

Authors:  Michael Linn; Eva-Maria Collnot; Dejan Djuric; Katja Hempel; Eric Fabian; Karl Kolter; Claus-Michael Lehr
Journal:  Eur J Pharm Sci       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 4.384

3.  Influence of lipid composition and drug load on the In Vitro performance of self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems.

Authors:  Nicky Thomas; Anette Müllertz; Anja Graf; Thomas Rades
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  2012-01-31       Impact factor: 3.534

4.  Toward the establishment of standardized in vitro tests for lipid-based formulations, part 1: method parameterization and comparison of in vitro digestion profiles across a range of representative formulations.

Authors:  Hywel D Williams; Philip Sassene; Karen Kleberg; Jean-Claude Bakala-N'Goma; Marilyn Calderone; Vincent Jannin; Annabel Igonin; Anette Partheil; Delphine Marchaud; Eduardo Jule; Jan Vertommen; Mario Maio; Ross Blundell; Hassan Benameur; Frédéric Carrière; Anette Müllertz; Christopher J H Porter; Colin W Pouton
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 3.534

5.  The effect of composition and gastric conditions on the self-emulsification process of ibuprofen-loaded self-emulsifying drug delivery systems: a microscopic and dynamic gastric model study.

Authors:  Annalisa Mercuri; Antonio Passalacqua; Martin S J Wickham; Richard M Faulks; Duncan Q M Craig; Susan A Barker
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2011-02-24       Impact factor: 4.200

6.  In-vitro permeability of poorly water soluble drugs in the phospholipid vesicle-based permeation assay: the influence of nonionic surfactants.

Authors:  Sarah Maud Fischer; Gøril Eide Flaten; Ellen Hagesæther; Gert Fricker; Martin Brandl
Journal:  J Pharm Pharmacol       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 3.765

Review 7.  The utility of the minipig as an animal model in regulatory toxicology.

Authors:  Gerd Bode; Peter Clausing; Frederic Gervais; Jeanet Loegsted; Jörg Luft; Vicente Nogues; Jennifer Sims
Journal:  J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods       Date:  2010-05-31       Impact factor: 1.950

8.  Precipitation of a poorly soluble model drug during in vitro lipolysis: characterization and dissolution of the precipitate.

Authors:  Philip J Sassene; Matthias M Knopp; Janne Z Hesselkilde; Vishal Koradia; Anne Larsen; Thomas Rades; Anette Müllertz
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.534

9.  The conflict between in vitro release studies in human biorelevant media and the in vivo exposure in rats of the lipophilic compound fenofibrate.

Authors:  Thao Thi Do; Michiel Van Speybroeck; Raf Mols; Pieter Annaert; Johan Martens; Jan Van Humbeeck; Jan Vermant; Patrick Augustijns; Guy Van den Mooter
Journal:  Int J Pharm       Date:  2011-05-07       Impact factor: 5.875

Review 10.  In vitro lipolysis models as a tool for the characterization of oral lipid and surfactant based drug delivery systems.

Authors:  Anne T Larsen; Philip Sassene; Anette Müllertz
Journal:  Int J Pharm       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 5.875

View more
  16 in total

1.  A new in vitro lipid digestion - in vivo absorption model to evaluate the mechanisms of drug absorption from lipid-based formulations.

Authors:  Matthew F Crum; Natalie L Trevaskis; Hywel D Williams; Colin W Pouton; Christopher J H Porter
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  Influence of drug load and physical form of cinnarizine in new SNEDDS dosing regimens: in vivo and in vitro evaluations.

Authors:  Scheyla D V S Siqueira; Anette Müllertz; Kirsten Gräeser; Georgia Kasten; Huiling Mu; Thomas Rades
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 4.009

3.  The Effect of Digestion and Drug Load on Halofantrine Absorption from Self-nanoemulsifying Drug Delivery System (SNEDDS).

Authors:  Maria Høtoft Michaelsen; Kishor M Wasan; Olena Sivak; Anette Müllertz; Thomas Rades
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.009

4.  Toward the establishment of standardized in vitro tests for lipid-based formulations, part 6: effects of varying pancreatin and calcium levels.

Authors:  Philip Sassene; Karen Kleberg; Hywel D Williams; Jean-Claude Bakala-N'Goma; Frédéric Carrière; Marilyn Calderone; Vincent Jannin; Annabel Igonin; Anette Partheil; Delphine Marchaud; Eduardo Jule; Jan Vertommen; Mario Maio; Ross Blundell; Hassan Benameur; Christopher J H Porter; Colin W Pouton; Anette Müllertz
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 4.009

Review 5.  Current Status of Supersaturable Self-Emulsifying Drug Delivery Systems.

Authors:  Heejun Park; Eun-Sol Ha; Min-Soo Kim
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 6.321

6.  Incorporation of lipolysis in monolayer permeability studies of lipid-based oral drug delivery systems.

Authors:  Tanmoy Sadhukha; Buddhadev Layek; Swayam Prabha
Journal:  Drug Deliv Transl Res       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 4.617

Review 7.  The Precipitation Behavior of Poorly Water-Soluble Drugs with an Emphasis on the Digestion of Lipid Based Formulations.

Authors:  Jamal Khan; Thomas Rades; Ben Boyd
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 4.200

8.  In Silico, In Vitro, and In Vivo Evaluation of Precipitation Inhibitors in Supersaturated Lipid-Based Formulations of Venetoclax.

Authors:  Niklas J Koehl; Laura J Henze; Harriet Bennett-Lenane; Waleed Faisal; Daniel J Price; René Holm; Martin Kuentz; Brendan T Griffin
Journal:  Mol Pharm       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 4.939

9.  New Insights into Using Lipid Based Suspensions for 'Brick Dust' Molecules: Case Study of Nilotinib.

Authors:  Niklas J Koehl; René Holm; Martin Kuentz; Brendan T Griffin
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 10.  Models for Predicting Drug Absorption From Oral Lipid-Based Formulations.

Authors:  Linda C Alskär; Christel A S Bergström
Journal:  Curr Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2015-10-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.