<i>In vitro - in vivo </i>relations for the parenteral liposomal formulation of Amphotericin B:A clinically relevant approach with PBPK modeling

In vitro release testing is a useful tool for the quality control of controlled release parenteral formulations, but in vitro release test conditions that reflect or are able to predict the in vivo performance are advantageous. Therefore, it is important to investigate the factors that could affect drug release from formulations and relate them to in vivo performance. In this study the effect of media composition including albumin presence, type of buffer and hydrodynamics on drug release were evaluated on a liposomal Amphotericin B formulation (Ambisome®). A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was developed using plasma concentration profiles from healthy subjects, in order to investigate the impact of each variable from the in vitro release tests on the prediction of the in vivo performance. It was found that albumin presence was the most important factor for the release of Amphotericin B from Ambisome®; both hydrodynamics setups, coupled with the PBPK model, had comparable predictive ability for simulating in vivo plasma concentration profiles. The PBPK model was extrapolated to a hypothetical hypoalbuminaemic population and the Amphotericin B plasma concentration and its activity against fungal cells were simulated. Selected in vitro release tests for these controlled release parenteral formulations were able to predict the in vivo AmB exposure, and this PBPK driven approach to release test development could benefit development of such formulations.</p

A review of paediatric injectable drug delivery to inform the study of product acceptability – An introduction

Aim: The EMA defines acceptability as “the overall ability and willingness of the patient to use, and their caregiver to administer, the medicine as intended” [1]. This paper seeks to outline issues of acceptability in relation to injectable therapy, namely intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM) and subcutaneous (SC) administration routes, and to lay a foundation to identify a minimum set of data that would satisfy Regulatory Authorities when discussing the acceptability of an injectable product. In addition, it will alert drug product developers to other factors that might contribute to good practice, alternative administration strategies and overall adherence to achieve successful treatment. Whilst the term ‘parenteral’ means “outside the intestine” [2,3] and so potentially covers a range of administration routes including intranasal and percutaneous administration, this review focuses on IV, IM and SC administration by injection. The use of indwelling canulae or catheters to reduce venepuncture and facilitate prolonged treatment is common and may impact acceptability [4]. This may be influenced by information provided by the manufacturer but is not always in their direct control. Other injectable products suitable for routes such as intradermal, intra-articular, intraosseous and intrathecal, share the requirement to be acceptable but are not specifically covered in this paper [2,5]

Sex- and smoke-related differences in gastrointestinal transit of cyclosporin A microemulsion capsules

Belgium Herbarium image of Meise Botanic Garden

BU08073 a buprenorphine analog with partial agonist activity at μ-receptors <em> in vitro </em>but long-lasting opioid antagonist activity <i>in vivo</i> in mice

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Buprenorphine is a potent analgesic with high affinity at μ, δ and κ and moderate affinity at nociceptin opioid (NOP) receptors. Nevertheless, NOP receptor activation modulates the in vivo activity of buprenorphine. Structure activity studies were conducted to design buprenorphine analogues with high affinity at each of these receptors and to characterize them in in vitro and in vivo assays. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Compounds were tested for binding affinity and functional activity using [(35)S]GTPγS binding at each receptor and a whole-cell fluorescent assay at μ receptors. BU08073 was evaluated for antinociceptive agonist and antagonist activity and for its effects on anxiety in mice. KEY RESULTS: BU08073 bound with high affinity to all opioid receptors. It had virtually no efficacy at δ, κ and NOP receptors, whereas at μ receptors, BU08073 has similar efficacy as buprenorphine in both functional assays. Alone, BU08073 has anxiogenic activity and produces very little antinociception. However, BU08073 blocks morphine and U50,488-mediated antinociception. This blockade was not evident at 1 h post-treatment, but is present at 6 h and remains for up to 3–6 days. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These studies provide structural requirements for synthesis of ‘universal’ opioid ligands. BU08073 had high affinity for all the opioid receptors, with moderate efficacy at μ receptors and reduced efficacy at NOP receptors, a profile suggesting potential analgesic activity. However, in vivo, BU08073 had long-lasting antagonist activity, indicating that its pharmacokinetics determined both the time course of its effects and what receptor-mediated effects were observed. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on Opioids: New Pathways to Functional Selectivity. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2015.172.issue-