1 4 Dissolution

Dissolution
Lynda Paleshnuik
Training workshop: Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009
Overview
Starting Point: Establishing Dissolution Criteria
Monograph Availability in the International Pharmacopeia Other Pharmacopeia and Sources
Disintegration vs Dissolution
Prequalification Requirements - Comparative Dissolution
Development Strategy for Dissolution Methods

Validation of Dissolution Methods
2|
Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009
Dissolution - Introduction
The pharmaceutical scientist would like to find a relationship between an in vitro characteristic of a dosage form, and its in vivo performance. Disintegration was originally thought to be this characteristic. The USP introduced its disintegration test in 1950. With advances in methodology, the disintegration test was found to be too insensitive, and dissolution test methods were introduced in the USP in 1968. Dissolution can be predictive of in vivo behaviour, but this must be demonstrated for a given method applied to a given product.
3|
Dissolution - Introduction
USP <1088>: No product, including suspensions and chewable tablets, should be developed without dissolution or drug release characterization where a solid phase exists.
and
Dissolution testing is required for all solid oral Pharmacopeial dosage forms in which absorption of the drug is necessary for the product to exert the desired therapeutic effect. Exceptions are for tablets meeting a requirement for completeness of solution or for rapid (10 to 15 minutes) disintegration for soluble or radiolabeled drugs.
4|
Establishing Dissolution Criteria

Starting point:
What monographs are available? What are the dissolution requirements in the available monographs? What other sources of information are available? Product behaviour should justify the limits
5|
Finding Current PhInt Monographs

The International Pharmacopeia Supplement 1 to the 4th Edition (2008) is available at:
http://www.who.int/phint/en/p/docf/
For the latest monographs, including a list of those under development: https://www.who.int/medicines/publications/pharmacopoei a/mono_dev/en/index.html
6|
PhInt Monographs Under Development

Example: HIV/AIDS: Adopted monographs APIs :: Emticitabine [pdf 81kb] :: Nevirapine (revised monograph) [pdf 63kb] Dosage forms :: Efavirenz capsules [pdf 62kb] :: Efavirenz oral solution [pdf 60kb] :: Nevirapine oral suspension [pdf 66kb] :: Nevirapine tablets [pdf 61kb] :: Zidovudine, lamivudine and nevirapine tablets [pdf 68kb]
7|
Other Pharmacopeia and Sources

BP 2009 index: http://www.pharmacopoeia.co.uk/pdf/2009_index.pdf USP 2009/S1/S2 ICH Q6A Decision tree #7: for setting acceptance criteria for dissolution USP.org Under USP-NF: compendial tools, there is a dissolution toolkit. This toolkit provides procedures to evaluate the correct set-up, operation, and performance of the basket and paddle apparatus and the test assembly.
8|
USP vs PhInt Dissolution for Solid Orals

The apparatus 1 (basket) and apparatus 2 (paddle) are essentially the same in USP, BP and PhInt pharmacopeia. (See next slides.)
The acceptance criteria in the PhInt dissolution chapter for solid orals is the same as USP Acceptance Table 1, ie S1/S2/S3 stages and reference to Q (average).
9|
USP Apparatus 1: Basket
10 |
PhInt Basket Apparatus
11 |
PhInt Paddle Apparatus
12 |
Disintegration (DT) Testing

For immediate release tablets and capsules, dissolution rate is determined by:
1) Rate of release of the API from the matrix, and 2) The rate at which the API dissolves in the medium.
For highly soluble APIs, the rate is largely determined by the disintegration of the dosage form.
13 |
Disintegration (DT) Testing

Note that disintegration is generally an in-process test when the API is not highly soluble.
Disintegration is indicated in the PhInt General Chapter on tablets for various tablet types (uncoated, soluble tablets, effervescent tablets, coated tablets). However: a statement is included regarding all tablets: Where a requirement for the Dissolution test is specified in the individual monograph, the 5.3 Disintegration test for tablets and capsules is not required.
14 |
ICH Q6: Disintegration may be substituted for dissolution when: -rapidly dissolving FPPs (dissolution >80% in 15 minutes at pH 1.2, 4.0 and 6.8) and FPPs containing APIs which are highly soluble throughout the physiological range (dose/solubility volume < 250 mL from pH 1.2 to 6.8) Most appropriate when: - relationship between DT and dissolution is established, or - DT shown to be more discriminating than dissolution.
In these cases development information should be provided to support the robustness of the formulation and manufacturing process with respect to the selection of dissolution vs. disintegration testing (see Decision Tree #7(1)).
15 |
ICH Q6 Decision Tree 7/1
16 |
In the preface to the current PhInt, it states that dissolution testing has been added to monographs for tablets and capsules containing highly soluble APIs, for example chloroquine sulfate tablets and isoniazid tablets, as an alternative to disintegration.
the disintegration test is considered to be generally satisfactory for such products.
17 |
Prequalification Requirements
A discriminating dissolution method should be developed for the final composition of the FPP, when applicable. This is a general requirement for solid orals.
Limits should be set for each API in fixed-dose FPPs. The dissolution method should be incorporated into the stability and quality control programs (release and shelflife specifications). Release limits = Shelf-life limits. Multipoint dissolution profiles of both the test and the reference FPPs should be compared.
18 |
Prequalification Requirements Comparative Dissolution

A tabulated summary of the compositions of the FPP batches (batch number, batch size, manufacturing date and certificate of analysis at batch release) used in clinical trials and in bioequivalence studies and a presentation of dissolution profiles must be provided. A discussion of the documented information and data should be presented. Results from comparative in vitro studies (e.g., dissolution) should be discussed.
19 |
Supplement 1 to the Main Generics Guide: Dissolution Testing

Media for comparative dissolution studies:
pH 6.8 buffer pH 4.5 buffer pH 1.2 buffer or 0.1N HCl
Water may be used as an additional medium, especially when the API is unstable in buffered media to the extent that data is unusable.
20 |
Supplement 1 Comparative Dissolution

Calculation of similarity:
If both test and reference products show >85% dissolution in 15 minutes, profiles are considered similar and f2 calculation is unnecessary. Otherwise, calculate f2 (calculation next page). If f2>50, the profiles are considered similar.
21 |
f2 is the similarity factor, n is the number of time points, R(t) is the mean %drug dissolved (reference product), and T(t) is the mean %drug dissolved (test product).
The evaluation of similarity is based on the conditions of: A minimum of three time points (zero excluded); time points for comparator and test products should be the same. 12 dosage units of each formulation;
22 |

A maximum of one time point after 85% of the comparator product has been reached. If 85% is not reached due to poor solubility, dissolution should be conducted until an asymptote (plateau) is reached.
The RSD (relative standard deviation) of the mean of any product should be <20% for the early time point and <10% for subsequent time points.
23 |

Reporting data: the report should include at least: 1) Purpose of study 2) Products / batches information Batch numbers, manufacturing/expiry date, and packaging of the two batches used in the study Batch manufacturing record(s), batch size(s), manufacturing sites and CoAs for the batch(es) of the test product(s). Note that the batches tested must be the batches of test and comparator product used in the BE study.
24 |

3) Full dissolution conditions and method, as well as the number of units (tablets, capsules, etc) per study. It should be indicated how and when the samples were filtered. Any problems with pH related stability of samples should be indicated and discussed in terms of preventative handling measures, analysis and interpretation of data.
25 |

4) Analytical method (validated) or reference to part of dossier 5) Results (% API dissolved)
Tabulated (individual results, mean and %CV) Graphically Similarity determination / f2 calculation if necessary
6) Conclusion/recommendation
26 |
Development of a Discriminating Method

A method must be developed which is both
a) discriminating, and b) rugged and reproducible enough for day-to-day operation, and capable of transfer between labs. The acceptance criteria should be representative of multiple batches with the same formulation/manufacturing process, including key batches (eg BE).
27 |

The method should be discriminating enough:
The procedure should be capable of distinguishing significant changes in composition or manufacturing process that might be expected to affect in vivo performance. The method should not be overly sensitive:
Assessing the results from multiple batches that represent typical variability in composition and manufacturing parameters may assist this evaluation.
28 |

Factors to consider:
Qualitative and quantitative excipient changes Manufacturing parameters (examples):
Lubrication Blend time Compression force Drying parameters
29 |
Development Strategy for Dissolution Methods

Adopt the compendial method if one exists
- exception: unsuitable (example interference) When no compendial method exists: - develop a method using compendial methodology (general chapters) and a study of three factors.
30 |
Development Strategy
Documented dissolution study focuses on three factors:
1: -the physicochemical characteristics of the product (solubility, pH and quantitation of API released)
2: -the extent and rate of release of API from the FPP

3: - QC of the system (performance checks)
31 |
Physicochemical characteristics
Solubility
pH API quantitation
32 |
Physicochemical characteristics: Solubility

Solubility of the API in 37C in water, other media (ie HCl) or buffers of different pH should meet sink condition (volume of medium at least three times that required in order to form a saturated solution of API).
In the absence of sink conditions, investigate methods to enhance solubility, eg use of a surfactant. If a surfactant is used, its concentration should be properly justified (e.g. typically <2% Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS)). See also media descriptions in PhInt, including pH 6.8 with 0.25% SDS.
33 |
pH: water may be used as medium, however the effect of the formulation on the pH of water must be investigated and if it changes, the use of buffers or HCl should be considered.
pH should have in-vivo relevance if possible; Stability and solubility of API should be considered, for example some ACTs are unstable in acidic medium
34 |
API quantitation: UV is often used; for UV the applicant should have demonstrated: a) non-interference with formulation components (spectra of API in the formula and in standard solutions should be identical in shape/magnitude); b) linearity (absorbance vs concentration) up to the highest expected concentration.
Note that these will be determined as part of routine validation.

Chromatography is often necessary instead of UV when there is excipient interference, it is low dose or it is a FDC-FPP that requires more sensitivity and/or selectivity.
35 |
Performance Checks
Performance checks include calibration of the system with suitable calibrators (PhInt). The USP calibrator tablets are considered acceptable for dissolution method calibration. System suitability testing (SST) is required to be included in methodology. For a dissolution method, limits should be established for: - Precision ( 2%) plus (for HPLC) either:
- Peak asymmetry/tailing factor (preferable) ( 2) or

- Theoretical plates ( 2000) or - Resolution (>2)
36 |
Establish dissolution profiles in at least two media within the physiological pH range. One should be a compendial medium, if a monograph exists.
Investigation of more than one medium, or a single buffer with different pH values or ionic strength, can aid in determining the optimum medium for use in quality control (eg to evaluate lot-to-lot changes).
37 |
If no compendial monograph exists, a suitable procedure should be developed based on the physicochemical properties of both the API and the FPP.
Choosing a medium in which dissolution is relatively slower, for eg pH close to the pKa value of the drug, may be advantageous as it may be more discriminating. Once a satisfactory system is achieved, the factors in its development should be summarized so the assessor can follow the evolution and determine whether the system is appropriate.
38 |
Method Description
The written procedure should include: Apparatus Standard and sample preparation Method of analysis (eg UV, HPLC) Sampling procedure (intervals, filtration*, handling of samples, dilutions) Calculations Acceptance Criteria
39 |
Method Description
Filtration:
It should be indicated how and when samples are filtered. An inert filter is required with a suitable pore size. The intent is to avoid a) adsorption of active from solution or b) interference due to substances extractable by the dissolution medium.
40 |
Sample Stability
Stability of samples:
Any problems with pH related stability of samples should be indicated and discussed in terms of preventative handling measures, analysis and interpretation of data. Note that some of the ACT molecules are unstable in acidic medium.
41 |
Appropriateness of Method
Check:
1) Whether BCS Class 1 or 3 2) Results (BE batch characteristics, COAs, stability data) 3) Has data been provided to demonstrate the method is discriminatory? 4) Published methods
42 |
BCS Classification
PhInt monographs for class 1 or 3 APIs have (or will have) a standard dissolution method:
Paddle, 75 rpm
500 mL pH 6.8 phosphate buffer

Criteria: NLT 80% l.c. in 30 minutes or DT NMT 10 min
43 |
Justification Based on Results

ICHQ6 states that actual results obtained (batch analysis, stability studies) should form the primary basis of all justification.
Do results indicate the method is discriminating? (Results of studies on different formulations (qualitative/quantitative excipient differences), API particle size distribution (PSD), process parameters or In-Process Controls (eg hardness, coating thickness)).
44 |
Published Methods
Compendial general chapters
- PhInt: Methods of Analysis: 5.5 Dissolution test for solid oral dosage forms.
- USP <711> Dissolution and <724> Drug Release

- USP <1088> In-Vitro and In-Vivo Evaluation of Dosage Forms - USP <1092> The Dissolution Procedure: Development and Evaluation
45 |
Published Methods
2) FDA dissolution site
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/dissolution/
- Gives reference to USP monograph if one exists - Gives approved method parameters where no monograph exists.
46 |
Published Methods
Example for tenofovir (no compendial monograph):
2FDC, 3FDC and monotherapy tablets. Monotherapy tablets: Apparatus: Speed: Medium: Sampling:
47 |
Paddle 50 rpm 0.1N HCl 10, 20, 30, and 45 minutes
ICH Q6 Decision Tree 7/2.
48 |
Validation
Validation:
Testing a method to demonstrate it is suitable for its intended purpose and the results obtained are meaningful. Provides confidence that the method will perform properly under intended conditions.
49 |
Validation
Compendial dissolution methods should be revalidated (verified) for: Specificity Accuracy Precision (repeatability).
50 |
Validation
House dissolution methods (HPLC, UV) should be fully validated: Specificity Linearity Accuracy Repeatability
Intermediate precision
Robustness (performed but not provided)
51 |
Validation
Specificity: Chromatograms: sample containing placebo excipients vs sample without these components.
Linearity: range to be validated: 20% of limits; eg if limits cover from 20% to 90% l.c. (controlled release), linearity should cover 0-110% of l.c. Coefficient of Determination (r2) 0.997 Accuracy: assay samples/placeboes spiked with API; analysis in triplicate. A bias of 2% or less is acceptable.
52 |
Validation
Precision:
System precision Repeatability (method precision) Intermediate precision (precision with variations, eg days, analysts, equipment) Reproducibility (inter-laboratory trial)
53 |
Validation
Repeatability determination:
9 determinations covering the range, eg 3 concentrations in triplicate (n=3)
OR
2 or 3 determinations on each of 3 days OR 6 determinations at 100% of the concentration
54 |
Validation
Intermediate Precision:
Variations: days, analysts, equipment (matrixing allowed) Precision Results: RSD 2.5%
55 |
Example Issues
Example 1:
Granules are formulated to be dispersed in water prior to administration. The API is very bitter and granules are coated to mask the taste. The dissolution studies provided should include a demonstration that the coating serves its purpose, ie it can withstand the dispersion process. (Failure would result in a product which cannot be taken due to bitterness.)
56 |
Example Issues
Example 2
For some FDCs, the comparator is in the form of more than one tablet. When running comparative dissolution, only one tablet should be placed in any one vessel. Therefore the evaluation may have to be performed one API at a time.
If the study uses more than one tablet per vessel, solubility issues arise.
57 |
Questions?
58 |

1 4 Dissolution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 4 Dissolution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissolution

Training workshop: Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Development Strategy for Dissolution Methods

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Establishing Dissolution Criteria

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Finding Current PhInt Monographs

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

PhInt Monographs Under Development

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Other Pharmacopeia and Sources

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

USP vs PhInt Dissolution for Solid Orals

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

USP Apparatus 1: Basket

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

PhInt Basket Apparatus

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

PhInt Paddle Apparatus

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Disintegration (DT) Testing

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Disintegration (DT) Testing

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

ICH Q6 Decision Tree 7/1

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Prequalification Requirements Comparative Dissolution

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Supplement 1 to the Main Generics Guide: Dissolution Testing

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Supplement 1 Comparative Dissolution

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Supplement 1 Comparative Dissolution

Supplement 1 Comparative Dissolution

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Supplement 1 Comparative Dissolution

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Supplement 1 Comparative Dissolution

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Supplement 1 Comparative Dissolution

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Development of a Discriminating Method

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Development of a Discriminating Method

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Development of a Discriminating Method

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Development Strategy for Dissolution Methods

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

2: -the extent and rate of release of API from the FPP

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Physicochemical characteristics: Solubility

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Note that these will be determined as part of routine validation.

- Peak asymmetry/tailing factor (preferable) ( 2) or

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009

Assessment of Interchangeable Multisource Medicines, Kenya, August 2009