Advertisement

Pharmacokinetic Study of a Soft Gelatin Capsule and a Solid-Supersaturatable SMEDDS Tablet of Dutasteride in Beagle Dogs

  • Jeong-Soo Kim
  • Eun-Sol Ha
  • Heejun Park
  • Du Hyung Choi
  • Min-Soo KimEmail author
  • In-hwan BaekEmail author
Original Research Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Background and Objective

Dutasteride, an analog of testosterone, a 5α-reductase inhibitor is widely used in the treatment of moderate to severe symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic characteristics of dutasteride in beagle dogs after oral administration of a conventional soft gelatin capsule (Avodart®) and a novel solid-supersaturatable soft-microemulsifying drug delivery system (SMEDDS) tablet.

Methods

In this comparative dissolution study, the dissolution of dutasteride was pH-independent for both formulations. Noncompartmental analysis and modeling approaches were carried out to determine the pharmacokinetic parameters of dutasteride.

Results

Approximately 90% of the drug dissolved in all media within 15 min, indicating that there was little difference in the dissolution rate of the solid-supersaturatable SMEDDS tablets and that of the commercial soft gelatin capsules. Using t test analysis, no statistically significant difference was detected in the pharmacokinetic parameters of the two formulations. The test/reference geometric mean ratios were 1.087 (90% confidence intervals 0.8529–1.3854) for the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from 0 to the last time point (48 h) with a measurable concentration and 1.094 (90% confidence intervals 0.8909–1.3454) for maximum plasma concentration. Unfortunately, the bioequivalent criterium (0.8–1.25) was not met due to the small sample size, but the results of this study suggest a possible bioequivalence of dutasteride in the two formulations.

Conclusion

Based on the results of this study, the development of a tablet dosage form of dutasteride using a solid-supersaturatable SMEDDS should be considered for humans.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This research was supported by Kyungsung University Research Grants in 2018.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

All animal procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the KPC laboratory, a non-clinical contract research organization. The experiments were conducted in compliance with the Guidelines for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the institute.

References

  1. 1.
    Roehrborn CG, Boyle P, Nickel JC, Hoefner K, Andriole G. Efficacy and safety of a dual inhibitor of 5-alpha-reductase types 1 and 2 (dutasteride) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 2002;60(3):434–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fossler M, Zhu J, Roehrborn C, McAleese P, Manyak M. Impact of formulation on the pharmacokinetics of dutasteride: results from two phase I studies. Clin Drug Investig. 2016;36(9):763–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Savla R, Browne J, Plassat V, Wasan KM, Wasan EK. Review and analysis of FDA approved drugs using lipid-based formulations. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2017;43(11):1743–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meyer MC, Straughn AB, Mhatre RM, Hussain A, Shah VP, Bottom CB, et al. The effect of gelatin cross-linking on the bioequivalence of hard and soft gelatin acetaminophen capsules. Pharm Res. 2000;17(8):962–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gullapalli RP. Soft gelatin capsules (softgels). J Pharm Sci. 2010;99(10):4107–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ofner CM III, Zhang YE, Jobeck VC, Bowman BJ. Crosslinking studies in gelatin capsules treated with formaldehyde and in capsules exposed to elevated temperature and humidity. J Pharm Sci. 2001;90(1):79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu J-Y, Zhang X-X, Huang H-Y, Lee B-J, Cui J-H, Cao Q-R. Esomeprazole magnesium enteric-coated pellet-based tablets with high acid tolerance and good compressibility. J Pharm Investig. 2018;48(3):1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Min M-H, Park J-H, Choi M-R, Hur J-H, Ahn B-N, Kim D-D. Formulation of a film-coated dutasteride tablet bioequivalent to a soft gelatin capsule (Avodart®): effect of γ-cyclodextrin and solubilizers. Asian J Pharm Sci. 2019;14(3):313–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baek I-H, Ha E-S, Yoo J-W, Jung Y, Kim M-S. Design of a gelatin microparticle-containing self-microemulsifying formulation for enhanced oral bioavailability of dutasteride. Drug Des Dev Ther. 2015;9:3231.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim M-S, Ha E-S, Choo G-H, Baek I-H. Preparation and in vivo evaluation of a dutasteride-loaded solid-supersaturatable self-microemulsifying drug delivery system. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16(5):10821–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choo G-H, Park S-J, Hwang S-J, Kim M-S. Formulation and in vivo evaluation of a self-microemulsifying drug delivery system of dutasteride. Drug Res. 2013;63(04):203–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim M-S. Soluplus-coated colloidal silica nanomatrix system for enhanced supersaturation and oral absorption of poorly water-soluble drugs. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2013;41(6):363–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim M-S. Evaluation of in vitro dissolution and in vivo oral absorption of dutasteride-loaded eudragit E nanoparticles. Drug Res. 2013;63(06):326–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park S-J, Choo G-H, Hwang S-J, Kim M-S. Quality by design: screening of critical variables and formulation optimization of Eudragit E nanoparticles containing dutasteride. Arch Pharm Res. 2013;36(5):593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim M-S. Influence of hydrophilic additives on the supersaturation and bioavailability of dutasteride-loaded hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin nanostructures. Int J Nanomed. 2013;8:2029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beak I-H, Kim M-S. Improved supersaturation and oral absorption of dutasteride by amorphous solid dispersions. Chem Pharm Bull. 2012;60(11):1468–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Madhav KV, Kishan V. Self microemulsifying particles of loratadine for improved oral bioavailability: preparation, characterization and in vivo evaluation. J Pharm Investig. 2018;48(4):497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vadlamudi HC, Yalavarthi PR, Nagaswaram T, Rasheed A, Peesa JP. In-vitro and pharmacodynamic characterization of solidified self microemulsified system of quetiapine fumarate. J Pharm Investig. 2019;49(1):161–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh D, Bedi N, Tiwary AK. Enhancing solubility of poorly aqueous soluble drugs: critical appraisal of techniques. J Pharm Investig. 2018;48(5):509–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ahsan MN, Verma PRP. Enhancement of in vitro dissolution and pharmacodynamic potential of olanzapine using solid SNEDDS. J Pharm Investig. 2018;48(3):269–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim R, Jang D-J, Kim Y, Yoon J-H, Min K, Maeng H-J, et al. Flurbiprofen-loaded solid SNEDDS preconcentrate for the enhanced solubility, in-vitro dissolution and bioavailability in rats. Pharmaceutics. 2018;10(4):247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nikolakakis I, Partheniadis I. Self-emulsifying granules and pellets: composition and formation mechanisms for instant or controlled release. Pharmaceutics. 2017;9(4):50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tong Y, Wang Y, Yang M, Yang J, Chen L, Chu X, et al. Systematic development of self-nanoemulsifying liquisolid tablets to improve the dissolution and oral bioavailability of an oily drug, vitamin K1. Pharmaceutics. 2018;10(3):89.  https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics10030096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baek I-H, Lee B-Y, Kang W, Kwon K-I. Pharmacokinetic analysis of two different doses of duloxetine following oral administration in dogs. Drug Res. 2013;63(08):404–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Research CfDEa. Guidance for industry: bioanalytical method validation. US Food & Drug Administration. 2001.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    WinNonlin. User’s guide (ver. 5.2). Pharsight Corporation: Mountain View, CA, USA. 2007.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baek I-H, Lee B-Y, Lee E-S, Kwon K-I. Pharmacokinetics of angiotensin II receptor blockers in the dog following a single oral administration. Drug Res. 2013;63(07):357–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kuentz M, Nick S, Parrott N, Röthlisberger D. A strategy for preclinical formulation development using GastroPlus™ as pharmacokinetic simulation tool and a statistical screening design applied to a dog study. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2006;27(1):91–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dong-A ST Co. Ltd.YonginRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.College of PharmacyPusan National UniversityBusanRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Pharmaceutical EngineeringInje UniversityGyeongnamRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.College of PharmacyKyungsung UniversityBusanRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations