Quantitative evaluation of dissolution profiles - from simple approaches to advanced chemometrics
Abstract
Many forms of drugs are designed to undergo dissolution upon oral administration. The kinetics and efficiency of this process are critical parameters to be controlled. The methods of its evaluation are described in official guidelines issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA) and World Health Organization (WHO). Many approaches of comparison have been proposed, because these guidelines are not limited to a particular mathematical method. This review summarizes the current state of this topic, covering both model-dependent and model-independent methods, as well as multivariate ideas. The references have been chosen to be the most important papers in the field, so that they can be treated by the reader as the best possible recommendations for further reading.
References
Davit BM, Kanfer I, Tsang YC, Cardot J-M. BCS Biowaivers: Similarities and Differences Among EMA, FDA, and WHO Requirements. AAPS J. 2016;18:612–618.
Amidon KS, Langguth P, Lennernäs H, Yu L, Amidon GL. Bioequivalence of oral products and the biopharmaceutics classification system: science, regulation, and public policy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90(3):467-70.
Amidon GL, Lennernäs H, Shah VP, Crison JR. A theoretical basis for a biopharmaceutic drug classification: the correlation of in vitro drug product dissolution and in vivo bioavailability. Pharm Res. 1995;12(3):413-20.
Shah VP, Amidon GL. G.L. Amidon, H. Lennernas, V.P. Shah, and J.R. Crison. A theoretical basis for a biopharmaceutic drug classification: the correlation of in vitro drug product dissolution and in vivo bioavailability, Pharm Res 12, 413-420, 1995--backstory of BCS. AAPS J. 2014;16(5):894-8.
Chen ML, Amidon GL, Benet LZ, Lennernas H, Yu LX. The BCS, BDDCS, and regulatory guidances. Pharm Res. 2011;28(7):1774-8.
Cook J. Impact of Discordance Among Regulations for Biopharmaceutics Classification System-Based Waivers of Clinical Bioequivalence Studies. Dissolution Technol. 2015:22;6–10.
ICH M9 on biopharmaceutics classification system based biowaivers - Scientific guideline [Internet]. European Medicines Agency [cited 2024 Apr 17]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-m9-biopharmaceutics-classification-system-based-biowaivers-scientific-guideline.
O’Hara T, Dunne A, Butler J, Devane J. A review of methods used to compare dissolution profile data. Pharm Sci Technol Today. 1998;1(5):214–23.
Tsong Y, Hammerstrom T, Sathe P, Shah VP. Statistical Assessment of Mean Differences between Two Dissolution Data Sets. Drug Inf J. 1996;30:1105–12.
Chow SC, Ki FY. Statistical comparison between dissolution profiles of drug products. J Biopharm Stat. 1997;7(2):241-58.
Polli JE, Rekhi GS, Shah VP. Methods to Compare Dissolution Profiles. Drug Inf J. 1996;30:1113–20.
Costa P, Sousa Lobo JM. Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2001;13(2):123-33.
Pinto JF, Podczeck F, Newton JM. The Use of Statistical Moment Analysis to Elucidate the Mechanism of Release of a Model Drug from Pellets Produced by Extrusion and Spheronisation. Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo). 1997;45:171–80.
Moore JW, Flanner HH. Mathematical comparison of dissolution profiles. Pharma Tech. 1996;20:64–74.
Shah VP, Tsong Y, Sathe P, Liu J-P. In Vitro Dissolution Profile Comparison—Statistics and Analysis of the Similarity Factor, f2. Pharm Res. 1998;15:889–96.
Ma M-C, Lin R-P, Liu J-P. Statistical evaluations of dissolution similarity. Stat Sin. 1999;9:1011–27.
Liu J, Ma M-C, Chow S-C. Statistical Evaluation of Similarity Factor f2 as a Criterion for Assessment of Similarity between Dissolution Profiles. Drug Inf J. 1997;31:1255–71.
Bartoszynski R, Powers JD, Herderick EE, Pultz JA. Statistical comparison of dissolution curves. Pharmacol Res. 2001;43(4):369-87.
Rescigno A. Bioequivalence. Pharm Res. 1992;9:925–8.
Gohel MC, Panchal MK. Comparison of in vitro dissolution profiles: Using a novel, model-independent approach. Pharm Technol. 2000;24:92–102.
Khan KA, Rhodes CT. Effect of compaction pressure on the dissolution efficiency of some direct compression systems. Pharm Acta Helv. 1972;47:594–607.
Anderson NH, Bauer M, Boussac N, Khan-Malek R, Munden P, Sardaro M. An evaluation of fit factors and dissolution efficiency for the comparison of in vitro dissolution profiles. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 1998;17(4-5):811-22.
Yuksel N. Comparison of in vitro dissolution profiles by ANOVA-based, model-dependent and -independent methods. Int J Pharm. 2000;209:57–67.
Adams E, Coomans D, Smeyers-Verbeke J, Massart DL. Application of linear mixed effects models to the evaluation of dissolution profiles. Int J Pharm. 2001;226(1-2):107-25.
Gurny R, Doelker E, Peppas NA. Modelling of sustained release of water-soluble drugs from porous, hydrophobic polymers. Biomaterials. 1982;3(1):27-32.
Borodkin S, Tucker FE. Linear drug release from laminated hydroxypropyl cellulose-polyvinyl acetate films. J Pharm Sci. 1975;64(8):1289-94.
Berry MR, Likar MD. Statistical assessment of dissolution and drug release profile similarity using a model-dependent approach. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2007;45(2):194-200.
Ford JL, Mitchell K, Rowe P, Armstrong DJ, Elliott PNC, Rostron C, Hogan JE. Mathematical modelling of drug release from hydroxypropylmethylcellulose matrices: Effect of temperature. Int J Pharm. 1991;71:95–104.
Higuchi T. Rate of Release of Medicaments from Ointment Bases Containing Drugs in Suspension. J Pharm Sci. 1961;50:874–5.
Tarvainen M, Peltonen S, Mikkonen H, Elovaara M, Tuunainen M, Paronen P, et al. Aqueous starch acetate dispersion as a novel coating material for controlled release products. J Control Release. 2004;96(1):179-91.
Korsmeyer RW, Gurny R, Doelker E, Buri P, Peppas NA. Mechanisms of solute release from porous hydrophilic polymers. Int J Pharm. 1983;15:25–35.
Peppas NA. Analysis of Fickian and non-Fickian drug release from polymers. Pharm Acta Helv. 1985;60:110–11.
Peppas NA, Sahlin JJ. A simple equation for the description of solute release. III. Coupling of diffusion and relaxation. Int J Pharm. 1989;57:169–172.
Makoid MC, Dufour A, Banakar UV. Modelling of dissolution behaviour of controlled release systems. STP Pharma Prat. 1993;3:49–58.
Langenbucher F. Linearization of dissolution rate curves by the Weibull distribution. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1972;24(12):979-81.
Koizumi T, Ritthidej GC, Phaechamud T. Mechanistic modeling of drug release from chitosan coated tablets. J Control Release. 2001;70(3):277-84.
Sathe PM, Tsong Y, Shah VP. In-vitro dissolution profile comparison: statistics and analysis, model dependent approach. Pharm Res. 1996;13(12):1799-803.
Lee JC, Chen DT, Hung HN, Chen JJ. Analysis of drug dissolution data. Stat Med. 1999;18(7):799-814.
Adams E, Coomans D, Smeyers-Verbeke J, Massart DL. Non-linear mixed effects models for the evaluation of dissolution profiles. Int J Pharm. 2002;240(1-2):37-53.
Zhang Y, Huo M, Zhou J, Zou A, Li W, Yao C, Xie S. DDSolver: an add-in program for modeling and comparison of drug dissolution profiles. AAPS J. 2010;12(3):263-71.
Chow GC. Tests of Equality Between Sets of Coefficients in Two Linear Regressions. Econometrica. 1960;28:591–605.
Saranadasa H, Krishnamoorthy K. A multivariate test for similarity of two dissolution profiles. J Biopharm Stat. 2005;15(2):265-78.
Halperin M. Almost Linearly-Optimum Combination of Unbiased Estimates. J Am Stat Assoc. 1961;56:36–43.
Adams E. Evaluation of dissolution profiles using principal component analysis. Int J Pharm. 2001;212:41–53.
Maggio RM, Castellano PM, Kaufman TS. A new principal component analysis-based approach for testing "similarity" of drug dissolution profiles. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2008;34(1):66-77.
Adams E, Walczak B, Vervaet C, Risha PG, Massart DL. Principal component analysis of dissolution data with missing elements. Int J Pharm. 2002;234(1-2):169-78.
