Content uploaded by Anes Thabit Alabsi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anes Thabit Alabsi on Aug 21, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available online www.jocpr.com
Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 2019, 11(7):13-19
Research Article
ISSN: 0975-7384
CODEN(USA): JCPRC5
13
Predicting the Bioequivalence of Ciprofloxacin HCL Tablet-Brands Using In
Vitro Dissolution and Rat Intestinal Permeability Tests
Anes AM Thabit*, Omar Khaled Ali, Saddam Al-qabel, Zaid Ali Ahmad, Abdulmomen Ali
Hawaej, Osamah Abduljalil, Youssef Al-waari, Ala'a Aldin Al-obaidi and Saddam Al-
Shwei
Department of Pharmacy, College of Medical Sciences, Al-Razi University, Yemen
______________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
Bioavailability of a drug is critical factor affecting its efficacy. This parameter for every new brand or a new batch
of the brand can be tested by in vivo bioequivalence studies on human volunteers where the equivalence in
bioavailability of the tested brand is compared to that of an innovator reference one. These studies requires
availability of huge budget, qualified personnel and specific technical requirements and hence, unfortunately, are
difficult if not impossible to be carried out in poor countries such as Yemen. Therefore, the approaches of using
alternative methods such as animal models, under ethical approval, may be suitable alternatives to the expensive in
vivo methods. The present study was alongside those alternative approaches as it aimed to predict bioequivalence of
ciprofloxacin HCl 500 mg tablet-brands marketed in Yemen using in vitro dissolution and animal intestinal
permeability tests.
Five test brands and one innovator brand of the drug were investigated in this study. In addition to drug content and
in vitro dissolution, the rat intestinal permeability experiment using rat gut sac model, was carried out for each
brand. The drug content and dissolution of all brands were within the pharmacopeial limit with exception of one test
brand whose cumulative dissolved% was lower than pharmacopeial limit and also not similar to that of the
innovator brand. On the other hand, the permeability ratios of only two test brands were within the range of 0.80-
1.25. Since the drug has low solubility and permeability, the two brands which showed similar dissolution and
permeability to the innovator brand could be predicted to be bioequivalent to it.
Keywords: Ciprofloxacin HCl; Bioequivalence; In vitro; Prediction; Intestinal permeability
_____________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Ciprofloxacin HCl (3-Quinoline carboxylic acid, 1-cyclopropyl-6-fluoro-1,4-dihydro-4-oxo-7-(1-piperazinyl)-,
Anes AM Thabit et al. J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 2019, 11(7):13-19
14
monohydrochloride, monohydrate) [1] is a broad-spectrum bactericidal anti-infective agent of the fluoroquinolone
class approved for treatments of 14 types of infection, especially urinary tract infections such as acute
uncomplicated cystitis and chronic bacterial prostatitis, and lower respiratory infections [2,3].
The drug is a biopharmaceutics classification scheme (BCS) class IV drug, which means that the drug has low
solubility and intestinal solubility. Therefore, the dissolution and absorption of ciprofloxacin HCl are both the rate-
limiting steps in the drug bioavailability [4]. The drug is highly soluble at acidic pH, however, at intestinal pH like
6.8 and 7.5, its solubility is far lower. In vivo studies on human volunteers showed that the absolute oral
bioavailability of the drug compared to intravenous administration range from 56-77% [4-6]. The permeability of
ciprofloxacin HCl was measured in an in vitro Caco-2 assay, rat jejunum and In situ rat jejunum and found to be
(2.49, 3.2 and 11.1) × 106 cm/s, respectively [4,7].
Bioequivalence is defined by FDA as the absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent to which the
active ingredient or active moiety becomes available at the site of drug action when administered at the same molar
dose under similar conditions in an appropriately designed study. The accepted limit of bioequivalence as reported
by FDA is within the range of 0.80-1.25. Bioequivalence studies are mainly In vivo studies carried out on human
volunteers [8]. However, in vitro methods e.g. comparative drug release/dissolution studies under certain conditions
may give an indication of drug bioavailability and bioequivalence [9]. Other methods e.g. animal gut sac model,
which is an efficient tool for studying in-vitro drug absorption mechanisms, have been reported to provide results
which are in agreement with in-vivo findings [10-13].
Although ciprofloxacin HCl rat intestinal permeability was studied by many approaches including rat sac model [4],
this study was the first to use one of those approaches to predict the bioequivalence of ciprofloxacin HCl tablet-
brands.
EXPERIMENTAL SECTION
Materials
Ciprofloxacin HCl standard was a gift from Global pharma-manufacturer, Yemen. All chemicals used were
purchased from the local market and were at least of analytical grade. Six 500 mg tablet brands of the drug were
investigated in this study, of which one innovator brand (Cipro®; Batch No. BXGNH61, Bayer Schering Pharma
AG, Germany) were purchased from the market.
Instrumentations
UV spectrophotometer (LI-295 Lasany, India) and dissolution apparatus USP II (912, Esico, India) were used in this
study.
Animal Models
Six adult male Wister rats (286 ± 12 g) were used as models. The animals were incubated in appropriate cage. Prior
to test, they were fastened overnight with free excess to water.
Drug Content
The experiment was performed as described by TH Fereja et al. [14] as follows: A stock solution (20 μg/ml) of
ciprofloxacin HCl in 0.1 M was prepared. Serial dilution of that stock was performed to prepare 6 diluted standard
solution of concentrations (0.5-5 μg/ml). The solutions were filtered and then were analyzed by UV
Anes AM Thabit et al. J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 2019, 11(7):13-19
15
spectrophotometer at 276 nm. The calibration curve was constructed and the regression equation of the curve was
determined and used to analyze the drug in tablets. For the purpose of assaying the drug in the tested tablet brands,
20 tablets of the tested brand were powdered and then a quantity of the powder theatrically equivalent to 50 mg of
the drug was accurately weighed. The powder was then dissolved in 75 ml of water, filtered, and then made up to
100 ml with water. 1 ml of the solution was diluted up to 100 ml to provide a theoretical concentration ( Ct) of 5
μg/ml. The UV absorbance of that solution was measured at 276 nm. The obtained absorbance was introduced into
the calibration regression equation to calculate the practical concentration (Cp). The drug content was calculated as
follows:
Drug content%=100 × Cp/Ct
In vitro Dissolution
The test was carried out as described in the USP [1] using apparatus II provided with 6 chambers. Each chamber was
filled with 900 ml of 0.01 M as dissolution medium. 500 mg of ciprofloxacin HCl standard or one 500-mg tablet of
each brand was introduced into each chamber and the system operated at 37 ± 0.5 o C for 30 minutes. 5-ml aliquot
was withdrawn from each chamber at 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes, and 5-ml of fresh dissolution medium was
introduced after each withdrawal. The samples were filtered through 0.45 µm filter and the UV absorbance at 276
nm was measured. The dissolved% was then calculated the same as drug content described earlier.
The similarity factor (f2) of a test brand dissolution of to that of innovator brand was calculated as follows
f2=50 * log {[1+(1/n)Σt=1n (Rt-Tt)2]-0.5 • 100}
where n was the number of time points, Rt was the measured value of the reference original brand at time t, and Tt is
the measured value of the test brand at time t. The factor for each test brand was calculated once by using pure drug
and then by using original brand as references. The test brand with f2 value greater than 50 was considered
equivalent to the reference [9].
In vitro Rat Intestinal Permeability
The experiment was carried out as described in the literature [15-18] with appropriate modification. Prior to
intestinal permeability test, it was necessary to carry out standard calibration curve of the drug in the incubation
medium used in the experiment. Therefore, a stock solution (20 µg/ml) of ciprofloxacin HCl standard in TC 199
solution was prepared. The TC 199 solution was composed of aqueous solutions containing 145 mM NaCl, 4.56
mM KCl, 1.25 mM CaCl2. 2H2O and 5 mM NaHPO4,. Serial dilution of stock solution was made to prepare 6
diluted standard solutions of concentrations (0.5-5 µg/ml). The UV absorbance of those solutions at 276 nm were
measured and calibration curve was then constructed, from which the regression equation was determined.
Rats were anesthetized by chloroform. The intestine of the rat was exposed by a midline abdominal incision and 20-
25 cm segment of the proximal rat jejunum was excised and was immediately dissected and flushed with TC 199
solution at 10°C for 20 minutes. The excised segment was then gently everted over a glass rod and filled with TC
199 solution (serosal fluid) and tied using surgical suture.
In order to exclude the influence of drug dissolution on the permeability result, a solution of each tested substance
(pure drug or a brand powder) was prepared as follows: A powder of the tested substance was prepared by
appropriate milling and then sieved through a mesh No. 60. 5 mg of the sieved powder of pure drug, or an amount of
Anes AM Thabit et al. J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 2019, 11(7):13-19
16
the brand powder equivalent to 5 mg of the drug, was dissolved in 15 ml of TC 199 solution, filtered and the volume
was made up to 20 ml with the same solvent to provide a simulated mucosal fluid containing a theoretical initial
concentration of the drug of 0.2 mg/ml. The solution was transferred to an Erlenmeyer flask and was oxygenated
(O2:CO2=95:5) throughout the experiment time. The everted sac was placed in the flask containing. The flask was
then stoppered and kept at 37°C on a oscillating water bath at (80 cycle/minute) for 2 hours. At the end of the
experiment, the everted sac was emptied and the volume of the fluid was measured and filtered. The UV absorbance
of that fluid was measured by UV spectrophotometer at 276 nm. The test was performed in triplicates. Similarly, a
sample of mucosal fluid with a volume equal to that of serosal fluid was taken and filtered and its UV absorbance
was also measured at 276 nm. The average UV absorbance was determined and introduced into the calibration
regression to calculate practical concentration (Cp µg/ml) of the drug in the serosal or mucosal sample. These
concentrations were used to calculate the amount of drug (Q) (as mg) present in each fluid after experiment, as
follows:
Q=Cp. V/1000
Where V was the volume of serosal or mucosal fluid tested.
The apparent intestinal permeability coefficient (of the pure drug or a brand) was calculated as follows:
P=(dQ/dt). (1/AC0)
where Papp (cm/s) was the apparent permeability coefficient, dQ/dt (mg/s) was the amount of drug transported across
the gut sac membrane per unit time, i.e. the result of subtracting the amount of drug in serosal from that in mucosal
fluids; A (cm2) is the surface area, of gut sac, and C0 (mg/mL) represented the initial concentration of the drug in
mucosal fluid.
In order to make sure that the innovator brand could be valid to compare test brands with it, it was necessary to
determine the reference permeability ratio (Rr). This parameter was calculated as follows:
Rr=Pin/Pp
Where Pin and Pp were the intestinal permeability coefficients of the innovator brand and pure drug, respectively.
On the other hand, the test permeability ratio of the test brand was calculated as follows:
Tr=Pt/Pin
Where Pt and Pin were the intestinal permeability coefficients of test brand and innovator brand, respectively.
Because ciprofloxacin is BCS class IV, only the test brand which showed similar dissolution behavior and
permeability ratio of 0.8-1.25, could be predicted to be bioequivalent to the innovator brand.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Standard Calibration Curves
Figure 1A and 1B, respectively, show the UV standard calibration curve, at 276 nm, of ciprofloxacin HCl in 0.1 M
(for drug content and dissolution experiments) and in TC 199 solution (for intestinal permeability experiment). The
two curves had optimum linearity of 0.995 and 0.994, respectively, and their regression equation that was used to
calculate practical concentration of the drug in the sample were (y=0.1009x-0.0058) and, (y=0.1131x-0.0082),
respectively.
Anes AM Thabit et al. J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 2019, 11(7):13-19
17
Figure 1. UV standard calibration curves at 276 nm of ciprofloxacin HCl in 0.1 M (A) and TC 199 solution (B)
Drug Content
The drug content% of ciprofloxacin HCl among the tested tablet-brands was found to be within the USP limit (90-
110%) and ranged from 99.5 (±3.032) to 102.2 (±0.97).
In Vitro Dissolution
As demonstrated in Figure 2 and Table 1, the cumulative dissolved% of ciprofloxacin HCl, up to 30 minutes, for the
pure drug and from the innovator and all test 500-mg tablet brands, except test brand (T5) were all in agreement
with the USP limit of the drug dissolution (not less than 80%). In addition, the dissolution similarity factor (f2) of all
test brands except (T5) was found to be >50 which revealed similar dissolution behavior of those brands.
Figure 2. Dissolution profile of ciprofloxacin HCl from pure drug (P), innovator brand (In), and test 500-mg tablet brands (T1,
T2,T3,T4,T5)
Table 1. In vitro dissolution and rat intestinal permeability of ciprofloxacin HCl for pure drug, innovator and test 500-mg tablet brands
Test
Cumulative
dissolved% 0-30 min.
Dissolution
similarity factor (f2)
Apparent Intestinal permeability
coefficient (x 106 cm/s)
Test Permeability
Ratio (Tr)
P
86.2□ ± 3.22
-
2.98 ± 0.071
-
In
80.1□ ± 1.03
-
2.502 ± 0.105
-
T1
84.1□ ± 2.13
94.4*
3.867 ± 0.064
1.79◙
T2
94.5□ ± 7.37
59.2*
2.403 ± 0.083
1.11♯
T3
86.6 □ ± 4.86
66.9*
2.613 ± 0.057
1.21♯
T4
83.4□ ± 4.05
80.1*
1.613 ± 0.031
0.75◙
T5
50.7♣ ± 1.73
20.2**
1.486 ± 0.088
0.69◙
P: pure drug, In: innovator brand, T1,T3, T4, T5: test brands, □: within USP limit (not less than 80%); ♣: lower than
USP limit; *: similar dissolution profile to that of innovator brand (f2>50); **: dissolution profile is not similar
Anes AM Thabit et al. J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 2019, 11(7):13-19
18
(f2<50); ♯: equivalent to innovator brand (0.8-1.25); ◙: not equivalent to innovator brand
In vitro Rat Intestinal Permeability
The apparent intestinal permeability (mucosal to serosal) of pure ciprofloxacin HCl, as shown in Table 1, was 2.98 ×
106 cm/s which was close to that reported in the literature (3.2 × 106 cm/s) [18].
Since the FDA bioequivalence limit is 0.8-1.25, this study applied the same limit to describe the degree of
equivalence in intestinal permeability. Concerning the innovator brand, it was found that this brand showed an
equivalent reference permeability ratio of 0.84 compared to pure drug. With respect to the permeability ratios of test
brands (compared to the innovator brand), results revealed that 2 brands (T2, T3) showed ratios within the accepted
equivalence. In the contrary, 3 brands showed ratios outside the accepted range with one brand (T1) showed ratios
greater than 1.25 and 2 brands (T4 and T5) showed ratios lower than 0.8.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results obtained from this study, only two brands of the investigated ciprofloxacin 500-mg tablet
brands could be predicted to be bioequivalent to the innovator brand as they showed similar dissolution behavior and
intestinal permeability.
REFERENCES
[1] United states pharmacopeia, National formulary. 2018, USP29-NF 24.
[2] Cipro® (ciprofloxacin hydrochloride tablets) Cipro1 (ciprofloxacin) oral suspension. Food and drug
administration, 2018.
[3] Cipro® medication guide, revised October 2008. Bayer health care under lincence of schering corporation.
[4] ME Olivera; RH Manzo; HE Junginger; KK Midha; VP Shah; S Stavchansky; JB Dressman; DM Barends.
Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2011, 100(1), 22-33.
[5] R Montagnac; C Briat; F Schillinger; H Sartelet; P Birembaut; M Daudon. Nephrol Ther. 2005, 1, 44-51.
[6] P Stratta; E Lazzarich; C Canavese; C Bozzola; G Monga. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007, 50, 330-335.
[7] M Rodrıguez-Iban˜ ez; G Sanchez-Castano; M Montalar-Montero; TM Garrigues; M Bermejo; V Merino. Int J
Pharm. 2006, 307, 33-41.
[8] www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances
[9] L Shargel; B Andrew; C Yu. Applied Biopharmaceutic Pharmacokinetics. 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill Education,
2016.
[10] L Ni; X Yu; Q Yu; X Chen; Jia L. Drug Metab Lett. 2008, 2(3), 163-168.
[11] R Yumoto; S Hamada; K Okada; Y Kato; M Ikehata; J Nagai; M Takana. J Pharm Sci. 2009, 98(8), 2822-2831.
[12] KK Machavaram; J Gundu; MR Yamasani. Drug Metabol Drug Interact. 2006, 22(1), 47-65.
[13] VB Cattani; LA Fiel; E Jager; LM Colome; F Uchoa; V Stefani; TD Costa; SS Guterres; AR Pohlmann. Eur J
Pharm Sci. 2010, 39(1-3), 116-124.
[14] TH Fereja, MF Seifu, TY Mola. American Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 2015, 2(1), 1-8.
[15] R Campos-Vega; K Vázquez-Sánchez; D López-Barrera; G Loarca-Piña; S Mendoza-Díaz; BD Oomah. Food
Research International journal. 2015, 77(2), 156-161.
Anes AM Thabit et al. J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 2019, 11(7):13-19
19
[16] MV Chirayath; P Rao. Journal of Information Research and Review. 2015, 2(11), 1321-1326.
[17] A Patil; V Raheja; A Damre. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research. 2010, 3(3), 204-207.
[18] S Zakelj; K Sturm; A Kristl. Int J Pharm, 2006, 313, 175-180.
