A commentary on "Are all measures of liver Kpuu a function of FH, as determined following oral dosing, or have we made a critical error in defining hepatic drug clearance?"

The clearance concept has been used in pharmacokinetics for over 50 years. However, there is still much debate regarding mathematical clearance models. A recent article discussed that there is a critical error in a basic assumption that leads to the mechanistic hepatic clearance models (Benet, L.Z., Sodhi, J.K., 2024. Are all measures of liver Kpuu a function of FH, as determined following oral dosing, or have we made a critical error in defining hepatic drug clearance? European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 196, 106,753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2024.106753). This commentary discusses this point based on the extended clearance model (ECM), which is increasingly used in modern drug discovery and development. Confusion about clearance can be avoided by using clearly defined drug concentrations based on hierarchical body structures.

Drug Crystal Precipitation in Biorelevant Bicarbonate Buffer: A Well-Controlled Comparative Study with Phosphate Buffer.

The purpose of the present study was to clarify whether the precipitation profile of a drug in bicarbonate buffer (BCB) may differ from that in phosphate buffer (PPB) by a well-controlled comparative study. The precipitation profiles of structurally diverse poorly soluble drugs in BCB and PPB were evaluated by a pH-shift precipitation test or a solvent-shift precipitation test (seven weak acid drugs (pKa: 4.2 to 7.5), six weak base drugs (pKa: 4.8 to 8.4), one unionizable drug, and one zwitterionic drug). To focus on crystal precipitation processes, each ionizable drug was first completely dissolved in an HCl (pH 3.0) or NaOH (pH 11.0) aqueous solution (450 mL, 50 rpm, 37 °C). A 10-fold concentrated buffer solution (50 mL) was then added to shift the pH value to 6.5 to initiate precipitation (final volume: 500 mL, buffer capacity (ß): 4.4 mM/ΔpH (BCB: 10 mM or PPB: 8 mM), ionic strength (I): 0.14 M (adjusted by NaCl)). The pH, ß, and I values were set to be relevant to the physiology of the small intestine. For an unionizable drug, a solvent-shift method was used (1/100 dilution). To maintain the pH value of BCB, a floating lid was used to avoid the loss of CO2. The floating lid was applied also to PPB to precisely align the experimental conditions between BCB and PPB. The solid form of the precipitants was identified by powder X-ray diffraction and differential scanning microscopy. The precipitation of weak acids (pKa ≤ 5.1) and weak bases (pKa ≥ 7.3) was found to be slower in BCB than in PPB. In contrast, the precipitation profiles in BCB and PPB were similar for less ionizable or nonionizable drugs at pH 6.5. The final pH values of the bulk phase were pH 6.5 ± 0.1 after the precipitation tests in all cases. All precipitates were in their respective free forms. The precipitation of ionizable weak acids and bases was slower in BCB than in PPB. The surface pH of precipitating particles may have differed between BCB and PPB due to the slow hydration process of CO2 specific to BCB. Since BCB is a physiological buffer in the small intestine, it should be considered as an option for precipitation studies of ionizable weak acids and bases.

Dissolution Profiles of Immediate Release Products of Various Drugs in Biorelevant Bicarbonate Buffer: Comparison with Compendial Phosphate Buffer.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to clarify the extent to which the dissolution profiles of immediate release (IR) products of various drugs differ between biorelevant bicarbonate buffer (BCB) and compendial phosphate buffer (PPB). METHODS: The dissolution profiles of the IR products of fifteen poorly soluble ionizable drugs were measured in BCB and PPB. BCB was set to be relevant to the small intestine (pH 6.8, 10 mM). The pH was maintained using the floating lid method. The Japanese pharmacopeia second fluid (JP2, 25 mM phosphate buffer, nominal pH 6.8) was used as compendial PPB. The compendial paddle apparatus was used for the dissolution tests (500 mL, 50 rpm, 37°C). RESULTS: In 11/15 cases, a difference in dissolved% (< 0.8 or > 1.25-fold) was observed at a time point. In 4/15 cases, the ratio of the area under the dissolution curve was not equivalent (< 0.8 or > 1.25-fold). In the cases of free-form drugs, the dissolution rate tended to be slower in BCB than in JP2. In the case of salt-form drugs, a marked difference was observed for the cases that showed supersaturation. However, no trend was observed in the differences. CONCLUSIONS: Many IR products showed differences in the dissolution profiles between biorelevant BCB and compendial PPB. With the floating lid method, BCB is as simple and easy to use as PPB. Biorelevant BCB is recommended for dissolution testing.

Dissolution Profiles of Oral Disintegrating Tablet with Taste Masking Granule Polymer Coating in Biorelevant Bicarbonate Buffer.

The current study aimed to explore the impact of buffer species on the dissolution behavior of orally disintegrating tablets (ODT) containing a basic polymer and its influence on bioequivalence (BE) prediction. Fexofenadine hydrochloride ODT formulations were used as the model formulations, Allegra® as the reference formulation, and generic formulations A and B as the test formulations. Allegra®, generic A, and generic B are ODT formulations that contain aminoalkyl methacrylate copolymers E (Eudragit® E, EUD-E), a basic polymer commonly used to mask the bitter taste of drugs. Both generic A and generic B have been known to be bioequivalent to Allegra®. The dissolution tests were conducted using a compendial paddle, with either bicarbonate (10 mM, pH 6.8) or phosphate buffer (25 mM, pH 6.8) as the dissolution media. A floating lid was employed to cover the surface of the bicarbonate buffer to prevent volatilization. Results indicated that in phosphate buffer, the dissolution profiles of Allegra and generic B significantly varied from that of generic A, whereas in the bicarbonate buffer, the dissolution profiles of Allegra, generic A, and generic B were comparable. These findings suggest that the use of bicarbonate buffer may offer a more precise prediction of human bioequivalence compared to phosphate buffer.