Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 2912–2925 | Cite as

Optimization of LY545694 Tosylate Controlled Release Tablets Through Pharmacoscintigraphy

  • Evelyn D. Lobo
  • Mark D. Argentine
  • David C. Sperry
  • Alyson Connor
  • John McDermott
  • Lloyd Stevens
  • Ahmad AlmayaEmail author
Research Paper

ABSTRACT

Purpose

To optimize a controlled release (CR) matrix formulation with two goals: (1) effectively deliver a prodrug to a preferred absorption region of the upper GI tract, and (2) afford a PK profile similar to a “reference” CR formulation.

Methods

A pharmacoscintigraphic clinical study was conducted using a flexible formulation design space. A six-arm, three-prototype study was employed to cover the formulation design space and assess performance against the reference formulation. Pharmacokinetic and scintigraphic data from the first three dosing arms were used to select prototypes to be dosed in subsequent arms.

Results

Of three prototypes tested, the third prototype had an optimal release rate. The in vivo erosion rate was observed via scintigraphy to reach 90% in 3 h. The AUC ratio relative to the reference for the prodrug was 1.25, while the Cmax ratio was 1.07. The ratios for the active moiety were 1.31 (AUC) and 1.01 (Cmax).

Conclusions

A single pharmacoscintigraphic study efficiently investigated a wide formulation design space and precisely optimized the release rate with few formulation iterations. The selected formulation provided the desired exposure at a 30% lower dose. The approach is beneficial when drug absorption is limited to a region of the GI tract.

KEY WORDS

absorption controlled-release flexible design space pharmacokinetics prodrug 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLOSURES

The authors would like to acknowledge the support from Nick McEntee, Abigail Pedigo, Chad Martinsen and Claudia Jacobs for their formulation development and manufacturing support; Matthew Deverall, for providing analytical in vitro dissolution support; Robert Stratford for providing clinical analytical support; Shobha Reddy, Chris Payne, Harry Haber (i3 Statprobe, Inc., Ann Arbor MI), and Matt Dunn for their support on the clinical study; Matthew Curley, Gaetan Rygaert, and Stacy Nolan for their quality oversight; and Xuan Ding, for her pre-formulation modeling support.

This work was funded by Eli Lilly and Company.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Davis SS, Hardy JG, Fara JW. Transit of pharmaceutical dosage forms through the small intestine. Gut. 1986;27:886–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casey D, Beihn R, Digenis G, Shambu M. Method for monitoring hard gelatine capsule disintegrating times in humans using external scintigraphy. J Pharm Sci. 1976;65:1412–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coupe A, Davis S, Wilding I. Variation in gastrointestinal transit of pharmaceutical dosage forms in healthy subjects. Pharm Res. 1991;8(3):360–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilding A, Coupe J, Davis S. The role of γ-scintigraphy in oral drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;46(1–3):103–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Connor AL, Wray H, Cottrell J, Wilding IR. A scintigraphic study to investigate the potential for altered gut distribution of loperamide from a loperamide-simethicone formulation in man. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2001;13(4):369–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cole E, Scott R, Connor A, Wilding I, Petereit H, Schminke C, et al. Enteric coated HPMC capsules designed to achieve intestinal targeting. Int J Pharm. 2002;231(1):83–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katsuma M, Watanabe S, Takemura S, Sako K, Sawada T, Masuda Y, et al. Scintigraphic evaluation of novel colon-targeted delivery system (CODES) in healthy volunteers. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93(5):1287–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Basit A, Podczeck F, Newton JM, Waddington W, Ell P, Lacey L. The use of formulation technology to assess regional gastrointestinal drug absorption in humans. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2004;21(2):179–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis J, Burton J, Connor AL, MacRae R, Wilding IR. Scintigraphic study to investigate the effect of food on a HPMC modified release formulation of UK-294,315. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98(4):1568–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu F, Lizio R, Meier C, Petereit H, Blakey P, Basit A. A novel concept in enteric coating: a double-coating system providing rapid drug release in the proximal small intestine. J Control Release. 2009;133(2):119–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pahwa R, Dutt H, Kumar V, Kohli K. Pharmacoscintigraphy: an emerging technique for evaluation of various drug delivery systems. Arch Appl Sci Res. 2010;2(5):92–105.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kwiatek MA, Menne D, Steingoetter A, Goetze O, Forras-Kaufman Z, Kaufman E, et al. Effect of meal volume and calorie load on postprandial gastric function and emptying: studies under physiological conditions by combined fiber-optic pressure measurement and MRI. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2009;297(5):G894–901.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cole E, Scott R, Cade D, Connor A, Wilding I. In vivo and in vivo pharmacoscintigraphic evaluation of ibuprofen hypromellose and gelatin capsules. Pharm Res. 2004;21(5):793–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davis S, Khosla R, Wilson C, Washington N, Leslie S, Malkowska S. The gastrointestinal transit of a controlled release formulation of indomethacin. Int J Pharmaceutics. 1990;60:191–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilding I, Davis S, Sparrow R, Smith K, Sinclair K, Smith A. The evaluation of an enteric coated naproxen tablet formulation using scintigraphy. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 1993;39(4):144–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pham A, Lee P. Probing the mechanisms of drug release from hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose matrices. Pharm Res. 1994;11(10):1379–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gao P, Skoug J, Nixon P, Ju TR, Stemm N, Sung KC. Swelling of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose matrix tablets: 2. Mechanistic study of the influence of formulation variables on matrix performance. 1996;85(7): 732–40.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siepmann J, Peppas N. Modeling of drug release for delivery systems based on hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC). Adv Drug Del Rev. 2001;48(2–3):139–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ghimire M, Hodges L, Band J, O’Mahony B, McInnes F, Mullen A, et al. In-vitro and in-vivo erosion profiles of hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) matrix tablets. J Control Release. 2010;147(1):70–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghimire M, Hodges L, Band J, Lindsay B, O’Mahony B, McInnes F, et al. Correlation between in vitro and in vivo erosion behaviour of erodible tablets using gamma scintigraphy. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;77(1):148–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skoug JW, Mikelsons MV, Vigneron CN, Stemm NL. Qualitative evaluation of the mechanism of release of matrix sustained release dosage forms by measurement of polymer release. J Controlled Release. 1993;27(3):227–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evelyn D. Lobo
    • 1
  • Mark D. Argentine
    • 1
  • David C. Sperry
    • 1
  • Alyson Connor
    • 2
  • John McDermott
    • 2
  • Lloyd Stevens
    • 2
  • Ahmad Almaya
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Eli Lilly and CompanyIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Quotient Clinical LimitedNottinghamUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations