Methods to Compare Dissolution Profiles and a Rationale for Wide Dissolution Specifications for Metoprolol Tartrate tablets†
Abstract
The objectives of this work were to apply several profile comparison approaches to dissolution data of four different but bioequivalent metoprolol tartrate tablet formulations to (1) identify the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, (2) quantify the metric for comparing dissolution profiles of each method, (3) determine metric limits that are consistent with the observed bioequivalence, and (4) rationalize the observed metric limits with respect to the role of dissolution in overall metoprolol absorption. Dissolution was performed by the USP monograph method on four formulations of metoprolol tartrate tablets (Lopressor plus fast, medium, and slow dissolving test formulations). Three general approaches to compare dissolution profiles were examined; they were ANOVA-based, model-independent, and model-dependent approaches. It is concluded that model-independent approaches and several model-dependent approaches yielded numerical results that can serve as objective and quantitative metrics for comparing entire dissolution profiles of the four metoprolol tartrate formulations. However, these methods presented complications. Some metrics were dependent on the length of the dissolution profile and the sampling scheme. Results from the pairwise procedures also depended on the pairing assignment of individual profiles. In spite of complications, these methods suggested wide dissolution specification limits. Wide dissolution specifications were rationalized through an analysi…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles
Costa, P., & Sousa Lobo, J. M. (2001) · European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · doi:10.1016/s0928-0987(01)00095-1 · Cited by 5,509 · see citing works
Kassaye, L., & Genete, G. (2013) · African Health Sciences · doi:10.4314/ahs.v13i2.25 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
- Authors
- Polli, J. E., Rekhi, G. S., Augsburger, L. L., & Shah, V. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
- Corresponding author
- Polli, James E.
- Venue
- Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1997-06
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 690-700
- ISSN
- 0022-3549 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1998095036
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 6.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Drug Solubulity and Delivery Systems
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
- Keywords
- metoprolol tartrate, dissolution profile comparison, bioequivalence, dissolution rate, in vitro-in vivo correlation, model-independent analysis, fast dissolving tablets, drug absorption, plasma concentration profiles
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Kinetics, Metoprolol, Models, Chemical, Solubility, Tablets
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review