Advertisement

Evaluation of the absorption from 15 commercial theophylline products indicating deficiencies in currently applied bioavailability criteria

  • Robert A. Upton
  • Lloyd Sansom
  • Theodor W. Guentert
  • J. Robert Powell
  • Jean -Francois Thiercelin
  • Vinod P. Shah
  • Peter E. Coates
  • Sidney Riegelman
Article

Abstract

The biovailability of theophylline from alcoholic and aqueous oral solutions was compared to that from an intravenous dose in 12 normal adults. The alcoholic elixir surprisingly gave rise to a significantly greater (114 ±14%, mean±sd amount absorbed than did the intravenous dose. The aqueous solution (99±8%) and intravenous dose were statistically indistinguishable in this respect, and, furthermore, the extent of absorption from a 300-mg dose of the aqueous solution was 99±10% of that from a 500-mg dose, and not statistically different. The aqueous solution was thus employed in three subsequent studies as a standard with which to compare 13 different types of theophylline tablets, all marketed in the United States. Of the 13 tablets, eight showed bioavailability statistically distinguishable from that of the standard. Nevertheless, for only two tablets could it be claimed with 95% confidence that the bioavailability was less than 95%. For none can it be stated at this confidence level that the bioavailability is less than 90%. Bioavailability studies should include criteria of clinical significance in addition to criteria of statistical significance. Contrary to the usual rationale behind choice of a bioavailability standard, nine of the 12 uncoated tablets appeared to allow more rapid absorption of theophylline than did the standard oral solution, an aqueous syrup. Increasing the dose of syrup decreased the rate of theophylline absorption. Orally administered drug solutions may have properties more absorption rate limiting than the disintegration of many brands of tablet.

Key words

theophylline absorption tablets oral solution intravenous bioavailability criteria 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. I. Ogilvie. Clinical pharmacokinetics of theophylline.Clin Pharmacokin. 3:267–293 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Hendeles, M. Weinberger, and G. Johnson. Monitoring serum theophylline levels.Clin. Pharmacokin. 3:294–312 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. W. Bierman. Theophylline in asthma.Pediatrics 58:623–635 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. H. Jacobs, R. M. Senior, and G. Kessler. Clinical experience with theophylline: Relationship between dosage, serum levels and toxicity.J. Am. Med. Assoc. 235:1983–1986 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. W. Zwillich, F. D. Sutton, T. A. Neff, W. M. Cohn, R. A. Matthay, and M. M. Weinberger. Theophylline induced seizures in adults.Ann. Intern. Med. 82:784–787 (1975).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. R. Yarnell and N.-S. Chu. Focal seizures and aminophylline.Neurology 25:819–822 (1975).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. P. Galant, S. A. Gillman, L. H. Cummins, P. P. Kozak, and J. J. Orcutt. Reliability of salivary theophylline as a guide to plasma theophylline levels.Am. J. Dis. Child. 131:970–972 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Danhof and D. D. Breimer. Therapeutic drug monitoring in saliva.Clin. Pharmacokin. 3:39–57 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. C. Yeh and K. C. Kwan. A comparison of numerical integrating algorithms by trapezoidal, Lagrange and spline approximation.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 6:79–98 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. L. Chiou. Critical evaluation of the potential error in pharmacokinetic studies of using the linear trapezoidal rule method for the calculation of the area under the plasma level-time curve.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 6:539–546 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    RMEAS, A program for Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance, Version 3, 1977, A. Bostrom, Scientific Computing Services, University of California, San Francisco, Calif. 94143.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. W. Dunnett. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control.Am. Stat. Assoc. J. 50:1096–1121 (1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. W. Dunnett. New tables for multiple comparisons with a control.Biometrics 20:482–491 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. H. Zar.Biostatistical Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1974) p. 198.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. A. Upton, J.-F. Thiercelin, T. W. Guentert, S. M. Wallace, J. R. Powell, L. Sansom, and S. Riegelman. Intraindividual variability in theophylline pharmacokinetics. Statistical verification in 39 of 60 healthy young adults. Submitted toJ. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. B. Sheiner, R. A. Upton, J.-F. Thiercelin, and S. Riegelman. Intraindividual variability in drug pharmacokinetics and its relevance to bioavailability testing. Submitted toJ. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. J. Westlake. Use of statistical methods in evaluation ofin vivo performance of dosage forms.J. Pharm. Sci. 62:1579–1589 (1973).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Fixley, D. D. Shen, and D. L. Azarnoff. A comparison of the oral absorption of a theophylline elixir and two combination theophylline tablets to intravenous aminophylline.Ann. Rev. Resp. Dis. 115:955–962 (1977).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Caldwell, R. Lancaster, T. J. Monks, and R. L. Smith. The influence of dietary methylxanthines on the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of intravenously administered theophylline.Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 4:637p-638p (1977).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Ginchansky and M. Weinberger. Dose-dependent kinetics of theophylline disposition in asthmatic children.J. Pediatr. 91:820–824 (1977).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. J. Kadlec, C. H. Jarboe, S. J. Pollard, and J. L. Sublett. Acute theophylline intoxication, biphasic first order elimination kinetics in a child.Ann. Allergy 41:337–339 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. L. Spangler, D. D. Kalof, F. L. Bloom, and H. J. Wittig. Theophylline bioavailability following oral administration of six sustained-release preparations.Ann. Allergy 40:6–11 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Weinberger, L. Hendeles, and L. Bighley. The relation of product formulation to absorption of oral theophylline.New. Engl. J. Med. 229:852–857 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Food and Drug Administration. Bioavailability and bioequivalence requirements.Fed. Register 42:1650 (January 7, 1977).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Cohen. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Academic Press, New York, pp. 273–406.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    P. G. Welling, L. L. Lyons, W. A. Craig, and G. A. Trochta. Influence of diet and fluid on bioavailability of theophylline.Clin. Pharmacol. Expl. Ther. 17:475–480 (1975).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. A. Upton, J. R. Powell, T. W. Guentert, J.-F. Thiercelin, L. Sansom, P. E. Coates, and S. Riegelman. Evaluation of the absorption from some commercial enteric-release theophylline products.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 8:151–164 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert A. Upton
    • 1
  • Lloyd Sansom
    • 2
  • Theodor W. Guentert
    • 3
  • J. Robert Powell
    • 4
  • Jean -Francois Thiercelin
    • 5
  • Vinod P. Shah
    • 6
  • Peter E. Coates
    • 7
  • Sidney Riegelman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PharmacyUniversity of CaliforniaSan Francisco
  2. 2.School of PharmacySouth Australian Institute of TechnologyAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.School of PharmacyUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  4. 4.College of PharmacyUniversity of ArizonaTucson
  5. 5.Laboratoires JoullieLa Defense-PuteauxFrance
  6. 6.Division of BiopharmaceuticsBureau of Drugs, Food and Drug AdministrationWashington, D.C.
  7. 7.Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations