Evolution of a physiological pH 6.8 bicarbonate buffer system: application to the dissolution testing of enteric coated products.

The use of compendial pH 6.8 phosphate buffer to assess dissolution of enteric coated products gives rise to poor in vitro-in vivo correlations because of the inadequacy of the buffer to resemble small intestinal fluids. A more representative and physiological medium, pH 6.8 bicarbonate buffer, was developed to evaluate the dissolution behaviour of enteric coatings. The bicarbonate system was evolved from pH7.4 Hanks balanced salt solution to produce a pH 6.8 bicarbonate buffer (modified Hanks buffer, mHanks), which resembles the ionic composition and buffer capacity of intestinal milieu. Prednisolone tablets were coated with a range of enteric polymers: hypromellose phthalate (HP-50 and HP-55), cellulose acetate phthalate (CAP), hypromellose acetate succinate (HPMCAS-LF and HPMCAS-MF), methacrylic acid copolymers (EUDRAGIT® L100-55, EUDRAGIT® L30D-55 and EUDRAGIT® L100) and polyvinyl acetate phthalate (PVAP). Dissolution of coated tablets was carried out using USP-II apparatus in 0.1M HCl for 2h followed by pH 6.8 phosphate buffer or pH 6.8 mHanks bicarbonate buffer. In pH 6.8 phosphate buffer, the various enteric polymer coated products displayed rapid and comparable dissolution profiles. In pH 6.8 mHanks buffer, drug release was delayed and marked differences were observed between the various coated tablets, which is comparable to the delayed disintegration times reported in the literature for enteric coated products in the human small intestine. In summary, the use of pH 6.8 physiological bicarbonate buffer (mHanks) provides more realistic and discriminative in vitro release assessment of enteric coated formulations compared to compendial phosphate buffer.

Assessment of gastrointestinal pH, fluid and lymphoid tissue in the guinea pig, rabbit and pig, and implications for their use in drug development.

Laboratory animals are often used in drug delivery and research. However, basic information about their gastrointestinal pH, fluid volume, and lymphoid tissue is not completely known. We have investigated these post-mortem in healthy guinea pigs, rabbits and pigs, to assess their suitability for pre-clinical studies by comparing the results with reported human literature. The mean gastric pH (fed ad libitum) was 2.9 and 4.4 in guinea pig and pig, respectively. In contrast, a very low pH (1.6) was recorded in the rabbits. The small intestinal pH was found in the range of 6.4-7.4 in the guinea pigs and rabbits, whereas lower pH (6.1-6.7) was recorded in the pig, which may have consequences for ionisable or pH responsive systems when tested in pig. A relatively lower pH than in the small intestine was found in the caecum (6.0-6.4) and colon (6.1-6.6) of the guinea pig, rabbit and the pig. The water content in the gastrointestinal tract of guinea pig, rabbit and pig was 51g, 153g and 1546g, respectively. When normalized to the body weight, the guinea pig, had larger amounts of water compared to the rabbit and the pig (guinea pig>rabbit>pig); in contrast, a reverse order was found when normalized to per unit length of the gut (guinea pig