Investigates formulation effects on gastric emptying and absorption in rats, implying formulation choice impacts bioequivalence risk.
Background/Objectives: Despite the presumption of bioequivalence for BCS Class I drugs due to their high solubility and permeability, recent evidence indicates that those with rapid systemic elimination exhibit heightened vulnerability to Cmax non-equivalence, primarily attributable to intrasubject variability in gastrointestinal transit and absorption kinetics. It is well known that gastric emptying is a significant physiological-dependent factor. But, does the formulation affect gastric emptying? Methods: Using zidovudine as a model drug, formulations containing sodium carboxymethyl starch (CMS-Na), pregelatinized starch, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), and lactose were investigated for their effects on gastric emptying kinetics, and the impact of excipient-mediated gastric emptying prolongation on pharmacokinetic parameters was also evaluated. Results: Relative to AZT alone (Cmax = 13,350 ng/mL; gastric %ID = 11.3%), co-administration with CMS-Na, pregelatinized starch, or HPMC significantly prolonged gastric retention (%ID: 23.4%, 30.5%, and 40.8% at 22.5 min) and reduced Cmax in rats by 47.8%, 34.4%, and 35.1%, respectively, with no effect on intestinal permeability. Viscosity positively correlated with gastric emptying delay. Conclusions: Our rat findings provide new possible mechanistic evidence that certain viscosity-modifying excipients can delay gastric emptying and reduce Cmax of zidovudine, a rapidly eliminated BCS Class I drug, with potential implications for biowaiver risk assessment. Gastric emptying is not only a physiological-dependent variation but also, in cases where common excipients may significantly delay gastric emptying, a formulation-dependent rate-limiting step. For such drugs, excipient-induced gastric emptying delay poses an underappreciated risk to the biowaiver approach, necessitating more prudent regulatory assessment that encompasses the dynamic interplay among sequential rate processes governing drug disposition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: