Biopharmaceutics Classification System: Defining a Permeability Class

Similar documents
Biowaiver and Dissolution Profile Comparison

The TC7 Cell Monolayer is a Valuable in vitro Intestinal Epithelial Model for Membrane Permeability Screening

Quantitative Evaluation of the Effect of P-Glycoprotein on Oral Drug Absorption

HEK293 cells transfected with human MATE1, MATE2-K, or vector control were established by

BCS: Dissolution Testing as a Surrogate for BE Studies

Estudios de Permeability In Vitro. Ismael J. Hidalgo, Ph.D. Absorption Systems Exton, PA

Define the terms biopharmaceutics and bioavailability.

Decision trees to characterise the roles of permeability and solubility on the prediction of oral absorption

Oroxcell Percutaneous and intestinal absorption

Excipient Interactions Relevant For BCS Biowaivers Peter Langguth

Membrane Transport. Anatomy 36 Unit 1

Biopharmaceutics Drug Disposition Classification System (BDDCS) and Its Application in Drug Discovery and Development

Advantages and Limitations of In Vivo Predictive Dissolution (IPD) Systems

BIOEQUIVALENCE AND THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCE. Soula Kyriacos, B.Pharm, PhD Head R&D, Pharmaline November 2016

Simulation of Membrane and Cell Culture Permeability and Transport. Michael B. Bolger and Viera Lukacova Simulations Plus, Inc.

Stimulate your kinetic understanding Permeability Binding Metabolism Transporters

Exploiting BDDCS and the Role of Transporters

Advantages and Limitations of In Vivo Predictive Dissolution (IPD) Systems

Application and Experience in the EU of the BCS Concept in the review of new generics & variations

ANNEX II SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS AND GROUNDS FOR POSITIVE OPINION

Predicting a Drug s Membrane Permeability: A Computational Model Validated With in Vitro Permeability Assay Data

Comparison Between the US FDA, Japan PMDA and EMA In Vitro DDI Guidance: Are we Close to Harmonization?

The Influence of Physicochemical Properties on ADME

Biowaiver Study on Prednisolone Tablets 5 mg in Three Different Brands. Marketed in Sudan. Safaa Mohamed *, Tilal Elsaman

BIOPHARMACEUTICS and CLINICAL PHARMACY

Solubility Enhancing Excipients Functional Effects on Drug Transporters and Metabolizing Enzymes: In Vitro Folklore or In Vivo Reality?

Metformin: Mechanistic Absorption Modeling and IVIVC Development

Application of IVIVCs in Formulation Development Douglas F Smith

Oxygen is transported across the cell membrane by the process of

REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE. Dr. Raghunandan H V Associate Professor JSSCP, JSSU, Mysore

Drug Absorption and Bioavailability

What location in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract has tight, or impermeable, junctions between the epithelial cells?

Many drugs have both lipophilic and hydrophilic chemical substituents. Those drugs that are more lipid soluble tend to traverse cell membranes more

Using Human Plasma as an Assay Medium in Caco-2 Studies Improves Mass Balance for Lipophilic Compounds

Summary and general discussion

Volume 1(3) May-June 2013 Page 351

METHODS OF STUDYING BIOAVAILABILITY AND BIOEQUIVALENCE

SPS Pharma: Who we are?

Drug Absorption and Bioavailability

Drug Absorption and Bioavailability

Saliva Versus Plasma Bioequivalence of Rusovastatin in Humans: Validation of Class III Drugs of the Salivary Excretion Classification System

Current Challenges and Opportunities in Demonstrating Bioequivalence

PK-UK Challenges and benefits of using PBPK to evaluate an IVIVC for drugs with nonideal solubility and/or permeability. Bath, November 2014

Series Editors: Daniel Kamin, MD and Christine Waasdorp Hurtado, MD

cationic molecule, paracellular diffusion would be thought of as its primary mode of transport across epithelial cells.

Biopharmaceutics Drug Disposition Classification System (BDDCS) --- Its Impact and Application

Biowaiver for Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage Form: A General Overview

Farmaci. Forskerne er opdelt efter fagområde. I farmaci skelnes der mellem teknologisk farmaci og lægemiddel-stof-transport. Teknologisk farmaci

Level 2 Biology, 2018

Development of Canagliflozin: Mechanistic Absorption Modeling During Late-Stage Formulation and Process Optimization

Transport through membranes

Helmut Schütz. Training on Bioequivalence Kaunas, 5 6 December

Chromatography on Immobilized Artificial Membrane

The Effect of Excipients on the Permeability of BCS Class III Compounds and Implications for Biowaivers

WHY... 8/21/2013 LEARNING OUTCOMES PHARMACOKINETICS I. A Absorption. D Distribution DEFINITION ADME AND THERAPEUIC ACTION

Mechanistic Modeling of in vitro Assays to Improve in vitro/in vivo Extrapolation

Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability derived from various body fluids. Saliva samples instead of plasma samples

RENAL PHYSIOLOGY, HOMEOSTASIS OF FLUID COMPARTMENTS

DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN BIOCHIMICA XXII CICLO

DRUG DISTRIBUTION. Distribution Blood Brain Barrier Protein Binding

Nature Neuroscience: doi: /nn Supplementary Figure 1. PICALM expression in brain capillary endothelium in human brain and in mouse brain.

Basic Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics: An Integrated Textbook with Computer Simulations

Understand the physiological determinants of extent and rate of absorption

Cryo Characterization Report (CCR)

3D Reconstructed Human Airway Models: Effect of Acclimation Conditions on Biomarker and Inflammatory Response Following Tissue Challenge

Permeation prediction of M using the parallel artificial membrane permeability assay.

FinTest IgG4 Screen 20 ELISA KIT

Chapter 4 Cell Membrane Transport

Models of the Choroid Plexus Epithelium

The ADME properties of most drugs strongly depends on the ability of the drug to pass through membranes via simple diffusion.

Intestinal absorption of drugs

Bioequivalence Requirements: USA and EU

cgmp Production on RFH Campus

Abacavir (as sulfate) 300 mg tablets WHOPAR part 6 May 2016 (Hetero Labs Ltd), HA575

4. ABSORPTION. Transport mechanisms. Absorption ABSORPTION MECHANISMS. Active transport. Active transport uses metabolic energy

Comparison of methods to asses mineral bioavailability (in vitro vs in vivo)

Membrane Transport. Biol219 Lecture 9 Fall 2016

USING PBPK MODELING TO SIMULATE THE DISPOSITION OF CANAGLIFLOZIN

Medical and Dental Sciences, Medical School Building, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, United

Biopharmaceutical aspects of intestinal drug absorption

Renal Physiology - Lectures

Biodiversity Study & Biomass Analysis

The BCS: Where Do We Go from Here?

Introduction to Pharmacokinetics (PK) Anson K. Abraham, Ph.D. Associate Principal Scientist, PPDM- QP2 Merck & Co. Inc., West Point, PA 5- June- 2017

Dermal Technology Laboratory Ltd

General Concepts in the European Pharmacopoeia. Anne-Sophie Bouin European Pharmacopoeia Department, EDQM, Council of Europe

Altered GI absorption in special populations: An industry perspective

New Formulation of Curcumin: Study of Oral Absorption and Bioavailability

UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES, ST AUGUSTINE

A Mechanistic Study of the Intestinal Absorption of Cryptotanshinone, the Major Active Constituent of Salvia miltiorrhiza

ACTIVE TRANSPORT OF SALICYLATE BY RAT JEJUNUM

Cellular Neurophysiology I Membranes and Ion Channels

Christian Wagner (Autor) Predicting the Oral Absorption of Poorly Soluble Drugs

Development of a Bioanalytical Method for Quantification of Amyloid Beta Peptides in Cerebrospinal Fluid

The use of Saliva instead of Plasma as a Surrogate in Drug Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies in Humans

Active Transendothelial Transport of Albumin

Received: ; Revised; Accepted: A REVIEW ON BIOAVAILABILITY AND BIOEQUIVALENCE STUDY Shashi Kant*, Bharat Parashar

Membrane Function. How does the cell membrane control movement of materials? Type 1 Ions Type 2 Molecules Type 3 Molecules Type 4 Molecules H O H

Building innovative drug discovery alliances. Hepatic uptake and drug disposition o in vitro and in silico approaches

Invited Review. Introduction

Transcription:

Biopharmaceutics Classification System: Defining a Permeability Class Blair Miezeiewski, M.S. Senior Scientist, In Vitro Permeability Lab

Definition of Bioequivalence The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has defined bioequivalence as, "the absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent to which the active ingredient or active moiety in pharmaceutical equivalents or pharmaceutical alternatives becomes available at the site of drug action when administered at the same molar dose under similar conditions in an appropriately designed study.

BCS Framework 1.If 2 drug products containing the same drug have the same concentration-time profile at the intestinal membrane surface, they will have the same rate and extent of absorption 2.If two drug products have the same in vivo dissolution profile under all luminal conditions, they will have the same rate and extent of drug absorption Class I-High solubility + High Permeability Class II-Low solubility + High Permeability Class III-High solubility + Low Permeability Class IV-Low Solubility + Low Permeability

Guidance Recommendations for Determining Drug Substance Permeability Class -Human studies : -mass balance -absolute BA -intestinal perfusion - Non-human studies : -In vivo or in situ animal model intestinal perfusion -In vitro permeability methods -Excised intestinal tissues -Monolayers of epithelial cells

Caco-2 System -human colon adenocarcinoma cell line -forms polarized monolayers with an apical brush border -morphologically homogeneous and comparable to human colon when seeded on dual chamber Transwell system - Considered an appropriate model for assessing the permeability of passively absorbed drugs

Guidance Permeability Class Model Compounds The FDA guidance states: To demonstrate suitability of a permeability method intended for application of the BCS, a rank-order relationship between test permeability values and the extent of drug absorption data in human subjects should be established using a sufficient number of model drugs. -minimizes inter-laboratory variability in permeability results

Caco-2 Papp x 10^6 cm/sec 2011 Absorption Systems Suitability of Caco-2 Monolayer Model for BCS Permeability Class 100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 23 model compounds with high and low human absorption potential have well separated P app values 10.00 7.50 5.00 2.50 1.00 0.75 0.50 Minoxidil 0.25 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.01 Low High Human Absorption

-10 µm Atenolol Absorption Systems QC (paracellular monolayer integrity) QC Criteria (SOP 023) -10 µm Propranolol (passive transcellular integrity) -5 µm E3S (BCRP transport) ASI-4 Compound/Probe QC Measure Caco-2 TEER (pre-experimental) (Ω*cm 2 ) 450 to 650 LY (0.5 mm) P app(a B) x 10-6 (cm/s) <0.40 Atenolol (10 μm) P app(a B) x 10-6 (cm/s) <0.50-10 µm Digoxin (P-gp transport) Propranolol (10 μm) P app(a B) x 10-6 (cm/s) 10.0-30.0 (CPT) 15.0-25.0 (BCS) -Qualifying properties of each batch ensures consistency between Caco-2 permeability and human intestinal absorption. Digoxin (10 μm ) P app(a B) x 10-6 (cm/s) N/A Digoxin (10 μm ) Efflux Ratio (no units) >10 E3S (5 μm ) Efflux Ratio (no units) >15 (BCS)

Guidance on in vitro cultured epithelial cells -Presence of efflux transporters -Lack of efflux transporters (compared to human levels) => potential misclassification of permeability class -BCS guidance recommends functional expression of efflux systems -Functional QC data showing asymmetric permeability of model chemicals Cell Plating Notebook Ref QC Notebook Ref Cell Line AS1576-32 AS1544-28 CACO2 Passage # 61 Da te Seeded 04/09/2014 Assay Date 04/29/2014 Cel l Age 20 STDV TEER (ohm-cm 2 ) 471 16 Passive diffusion, P app (x10-6, cm/s) Atenolol A B 0.217 0.0214 Propranolol A B 15.5 0.952 Pgp transport, P app (x10-6, cm/s) Digoxin A B 0.619 0.0517 Digoxin B A 17.3 1.85 Net Fl ux 16.7 Effl ux Ra tio 27.9 BCRP transport, P app (x10-6, cm/s) E3S A B 0.341 0.0103 E3S B A 41.0 2.52 Net Fl ux 40.6 Effl ux Ra tio 120

Internal Reference Standards Guidance indicates a low and high permeability model drug should be used as internal standards High permeability reference: Minoxidil -fraction absorbed reported > 90% in humans -validated acceptance criteria: P app of 2.33-7.91 Low permeability reference: Atenolol -fraction absorbed < 50% in humans -validated acceptance criteria: P app of <1 -Caco-2 monolayers clearly discriminate low and high permeability compounds

Absorption Systems BCS Approach Phase 1A: Pre-qualification and determination of the eligibility of test article for BCS biowaiver (a go/no go decision point) -Bidirectional with co-dosed controls Phase 1B: Protocol optimization and conduct of FDA-required experiments to establish protocol for pivotal studies - NSB, ph verification/tolerability, and bidirectional in absence of co-dosed controls Phase 2: GLP BCS classification of permeability pivotal study

Amlodepine Phase 1A Plan -Brand name: Norvasc -Calcium channel blocker -used to treat hypertension and other coronary artery diseases -BCS Phase 1A protocol: Treatment Dose Direction Replicates Sample Donor Sample Receiver Post- Experiment 1 2 Amlodipine, minoxidil (10 µm) and atenolol (100 µm) Amlodipine, minoxidil (10 µm) and atenolol (100 µm) A B 3 0 and 45 min 15, 30 and 45 min N/A B A 3 0 and 45 min 15, 30 and 45 min Lucifer Yellow

Phase 1B: Non-specific Binding -used to determine if test article is lost due to binding of the apparatus Treatment Dose Direction Replicates Donor Sampling Receiver Sampling 1 Test article only A B 3 0 and 45 min 45 min

Phase 1B: Monolayer Tolerability and ph Verification - Used to measure effects of test article on Caco-2 monolayer integrity (tolerability) and to elucidate any ph shift Treatment Dose Direction Replicates* Sample Donor Sample Receiver Donor and Receiver ph Measurement Post- Experiment 1 Test article, atenolol, and minoxidil A B 4 0 and 45 min** 15, 30 and 45 min** 45 min N/A 2 Test article only B A 4 0 and 45 min*** 15, 30 and 45 min*** 45 min PEDS run A B for 30 min 3 Atenolol and minoxidil A B 4 0 and 45 min** 15, 30 and 45 min** 45 min N/A 4 Buffer only N/A 4 0 and 45 min*** 15, 30 and 45 min*** 45 min PEDS run A B for 30 min

Phase 1B: Bi-directional Permeability -re-run bidirectional permeability in the absence of controls to confirm P app and that controls don t impact permeabiilty Treatment Dose Direction Replicates Sample Donor Sample Receiver Post-Experiment 1 Test article (1% HDS) only 2 Test article (1% HDS) only 3 Test article (10% HDS) only 4 Test article (10% HDS) only 5 Test article (100% HDS) only 6 Test article (100% HDS) only A B 4 or 6* 0 and 45 min 15, 30 and 45 min PEDS or C lysate B A 4 or 6* 0 and 45 min 15, 30 and 45 min PEDS or C lysate A B 4 or 6* 0 and 45 min 15, 30 and 45 min PEDS or C lysate B A 4 or 6* 0 and 45 min 15, 30 and 45 min PEDS or C lysate A B 4 or 6* 0 and 45 min 15, 30 and 45 min PEDS or C lysate B A 4 or 6* 0 and 45 min 15, 30 and 45 min PEDS or C lysate

Please feel free to ask questions! Thank You!

Data Processing and Interpretation

QC: TEER Measurements = (measured TEER Rb)*insert area (1.13 cm 2 ) Caco-2 TEER acceptance: 450-650 ohm cm 2 TEER Measured TEER TEER Adjusted AVE TEER STDEV Repeat (ohm) (ohm-cm 2 ) (ohm-cm 2 ) (ohm-cm 2 ) R1 448 504 518 43 R2 475 534 R3 517 582 R4 480 540 R5 419 471 R6 422 475

Apparent Permeability P app = (dc r /dt) x V r / (A x 60 x D NC ) x 10 6 (unit: 10-6 cm/s) Where, dc r /dt is the slope of the cumulative concentration in the receiver compartment versus time; V r is the volume of the receiver compartment in cm 3 ; A is the area of the cell monolayer (1.13 cm 2 for 12-well Transwell ); D NC is the nominal dosing concentration. LY L.Y. Conc. L.Y. P app Ave LY P app STDEV (um) (cm/s) E -6 (cm/s) E -6 (cm/s) E -6 0.660 0.24 0.22 0.02 0.552 0.20 0.590 0.22

LY apparent permeability oints.

Atenolol A B P app = (dc r /dt) x V r / (A x 60 x D NC ) x 10 6 (unit: 10-6 cm/s) Acceptance: P app <0.50 Atenolol Receiver Atenolol Conc. Atenolol P app Ave Atenolol P ap STDEV Repeat (um) (cm/s) E -6 (cm/s) E -6 (cm/s) E -6 R1 0.0129 0.238 0.229 0.00804 R2 0.0122 0.225 R3 0.0121 0.223

Propranolol Acceptance criteria: P app 15.0-25.0 A B Propranolol Receiver Propranolol ConcPropranolol P app Ave Propranolol STDEV Repeat (um) (cm/s) E -6 (cm/s) E -6 (cm/s) E -6 R1 0.835 15.4 16.0 1.48 R2 0.812 15.0 R3 0.961 17.7

Digoxin Efflux: Functionality of P-gp Transporter The efflux ratio (ER) is defined as Papp (B-to-A) / Papp (A-to-B) Digoxin ER 10 A B B A Digoxin Receiver Digoxin Conc. Digoxin P app Ave Digoxin P app STDEV Repeat (um) (cm/s) E -6 (cm/s) E -6 (cm/s) E -6 R1 0.0286 0.527 0.536 0.0105 R2 0.0289 0.533 R3 0.0297 0.548 R1 1.86 11.4 13.4 2.33 R2 2.09 12.8 R3 2.60 16.0 Net Flux P app(b-a) -P app(a-b) 12.9 Efflux Ratio P app(b-a) -P app(a-b) 25.0

Digoxin Historical Data

E3S Efflux: Functionality of BCRP Efflux Transporter ER 15 A-B B-A E3S Receiver E3S Conc. E3S P app Ave. E3S P app STDEV Repeat (µm) (cm/s) E -6 (cm/s) E -6 (cm/s) E -6 R1 0.010 0.35 0.37 0.02 R2 0.011 0.39 R3 0.010 0.38 R1 1.550 19.05 20.03 1.40 R2 1.580 19.42 R3 1.760 21.63 Net Flux P app(b-a) -P app(a-b) 19.66 Efflux Ratio P app(b-a)/ P app(a-b) 53.80

E3S Historical Data

Amlodipine Experimental Plan: Phase 1A Treatment Dose Direction Replicates Sample Donor Sample Receiver Post- Experiment 1 2 Amlodipine, minoxidil (10 µm) and atenolol (100 µm) Amlodipine, minoxidil (10 µm) and atenolol (100 µm) A B 3 0 and 45 min 15, 30 and 45 min N/A B A 3 0 and 45 min 15, 30 and 45 min Lucifer Yellow

Amlodipine Data Analysis: Part 1 Raw data (nm) 15 min. 30 min. 45 min. R1 1550 2920 4390 R2 2370 3470 5600 R3 2220 3620 4780 Cumulative Concentration (nm) 15 min. 30 min. 45 min. R1 1550 3127 4986 R2 2370 3786 6379 R3 2220 3916 5559 For A-to-B receiver samples, C c15 = C m15 C c30 = C m30 + C m15 2/15 C c45 = C m45 + C m15 2/15 + C m30 2/15 For B-to-A receiver samples, C c15 = C m15 C c30 = C m30 + C m15 2/5 C c45 = C m45 + C m15 2/5 + C m30 2/5

Amlodipine A-B Data

Amlodipine B-A Data Receiver conc (nm) Donor conc (nm) B to A 15 30 45 0 45 Papp X 1e6 * R1 4030 8672 12266 76800 72700 20.7 R2 2930 6622 10012 82100 87600 17.8 R3 5630 9452 14892 77200 86100 23.3 Mean 4197 8249 12390 78700 82133 20.6 STD 1358 1462 2442 2951 8204 2.7413 Replicate slope R2 R1 274.533 0.99 R2 236.067 1.00 R3 308.733 0.99 Efflux Ratio = 0.747

Recovery Calculation Where, Recovery NC (%) = 100 x ((V r x C r final ) + (0.05 x C ini ) + (V d x C d final ))/(V d x D NC ) V r is the volume of the receiver compartment in cm 3 ; V d is the volume of the donor compartment cm 3 ; C r final is the cumulative receiver concentration at the end of the incubation period; C d final is the concentration of the donor at the end of the incubation period; D NC is the nominal dosing concentration. C ini is the initial donor concentration;

Amlodepine Recovery Calculations Nominal Initial Donor Recovery Recovery 74.7 92.6 71.5 88.8 75.4 93.3 73.8 91.6 2.09 2.41 Nominal Initial Donor Recovery Recovery 78.5 100 92.7 110 92.7 117 88.0 109 8.17 8.75 A-B B-A Initial donor concentration (D ini ) may be used in certain occasions (e.g. when the measured concentration is much lower than nominal due to significant non-specific binding to the apparatus or cell accumulation) if properly justified by the Study Director. Mean Recovery NC must be > 80% to be considered acceptable. If recovery of test and/or control compounds is < 80%, mass balance needs to be established by measuring the residual concentration associated with the insert and in certain occasions, rinsing the receiver side to recover compound.

Internal References: minoxidil Cum. Receiver Conc (nm) Donor Conc (nm) Nominal A to B 15 30 45 0 45 Papp X 1e6 * Recovery R1 19.2 51.0 115 12600 9190 7.07 98 R2 16.5 55.2 98.3 7830 9020 6.03 92 R3 18.7 66.3 134 10100 10400 8.50 107 Mean 18.1 57.5 116 10177 9537 6.55 99 STD 1.44 7.92 17.88 2386 752 0.732 7.84 slope R2 3.194 0.96 2.726 1.00 3.843 0.99

Internal reference: atenolol Cum. Receiver Conc (nm) Donor Conc (nm) A to B 15 30 45 0 45 Papp X 1e6 * Recovery R1 10.5 25.1 54.2 79000 81000 0.322 81.0 R2 10.0 39.0 62.3 92800 103000 0.385 102 R3 11.2 33.0 62.2 85700 81900 0.376 82.4 Mean 10.57 32.38 59.54 85833 88633 0.361 88.5 STD 0.60 6.99 4.66 6901 12450 0.0342 11.9 slope R2 1.455 0.96 1.742 1.00 1.700 0.99

Amlodipine Phase 1A TEER and LY Rb 14 TEER LY.Papp Ave LY Papp Well# Rt LY, µm PASS/FAIL (ohm-cm 2 Sample ) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) 1 434 474.6 97.8 µm amlodepine, +100 µm 2 451 493.81 atenolol, +10 µm minoxidil A B 3 419 457.65 NO PELY 4 434 474.6 0.6700 0.5 97.8 µm amlodepine, +100 µm 5 470 515.28 0.4160 0.3 0.5 atenolol, +10 µm minoxidil B A 6 426 465.56 0.8770 0.6 AVE. TEER 480.25 STDEV 20.98

Amlodepine: Non-Specific Binding A to B Receiver Donor Papp Recovery Time Point (min) 0 45 0 45 (cm/sec, 10-6) (%) R1 0 44.4 876 535 22.3 68.3 R2 0 39.6 911 609 19.9 74.4 R3 0 49.1 822 581 24.7 74.5 Mean 22.3 72.4 SD 2.388 3.53

Special Case: Mass Balance (2) Mass Balance Mass Balance = ((V r x C r final ) + (0.05 x C ini ) + (V d x C d final ) + (V lysate x C lysate ))/( V d x D nc ) x 100 % Where, V r is the volume of the receiver in ml (1.5 ml for A-to-B, 0.5 ml for B-to-A); V d is the volume of the donor in ml (0.5 ml for A-to-B, 1.5 ml for B-to-A); C r final is the cumulative receiver concentration at the end of the incubation period; C d final is the concentration of the donor at the end of the incubation period; V lysate is the volume of cell lysate, 0.5 ml; C lysate is the measured concentration in cell lysis homogenate; D NC is the nominal dosing concentration. C ini is the initial donor concentration;

Additional Considerations: Case Study Table 4. Caco-2 Permeability and Recovery of Test Article in Ca 2+ /Mg 2+ -free HBSSg With and Without a ph Gradient Compound Nominal Dosing Conc. (µm) Measured ph 6.5/7.4 ph 7.4/7.4 A-to-B (mean, n=3) ph 6.5/7.4 ph 7.4/7.4 P app Recovery (10-6 cm/s) * (%) P app Recovery (10-6 cm/s) * (%) Test Article 13.5 13.9 12.5 NR 108 ± 8.65 NR 101 ± 9.99 Atenolol 100 99.8 98.6 9.06 a ± 1.08 101 ± 4.28 9.36 a ± 0.997 90.6 ± 7.00 Minoxidil 10 11.0 9.90 NR 100 ± 0.899 NR 97.0 ± 9.02 Two possible alternative approaches were considered: A ph gradient (apical 6.5, basolateral 7.4) and Ca2/Mg2+free HBSSg (to reduce the buffer-specific chelation of test article with divalent cations and possibly overcome solubility limitations).