Nevertheless, a similar exposure level as the IR formulation was observed for the CR formulations for some of the BCS class 3 compounds (high CLint,CYP3A4 ⩾ 2500 μL/min/mg).

This could be a product of the aforementioned overestimation in absorption. BCS class 1 compounds, on the other hand, are more likely to be Selisistat molecular weight absorbed in distal regions of the GI tract ( Tannergren et al., 2009). Thus, for this type of compounds, the reduction in intestinal metabolism could lead to AUC levels higher than that observed for IR formulations ( Figs. 3A and S3A). A relative bioavailability of up to 220% was observed for the simulated CR formulations of highly CYP3A4-cleared compounds (CLint,CYP3A4 ⩾ 2500 μL/min/mg) (Fig. 6). These results were in good agreement with the clinical observations for CR release formulations, for buspirone, oxybutynin, quetiapine and cyclobenzaprine, where the increase in relative bioavailability in the CR formulations was dependent upon an apparent reduction in metabolic clearance of the aforementioned compounds. The use of in vivo data for the determination of the in vitro intrinsic clearance for the analysis in Fig. 6 seemed justified

as the in vitro values would have underpredicted the in vivo clearance for oxybutynin and buspirone. The in vitro clearance, varied between 268 and 442 μL/min/mg ( Gertz et al., 2011 and Zhu et al., 2005) for buspirone, and 78–278 μL/min/mg for oxybutynin ( Mizushima et al., 2007 and Yaich et al., 1998), whereas the value determined from AZD2281 mouse the in vivo clearances ( Table S3) were 5454 μL/min/mg and 2932 μL/min/mg for buspirone and oxybutynin, respectively. This underprediction was also observed, to a lesser extent, for cyclobenzaprine, whereas for quetiapine an in vitro value similar to the in vivo value was observed ( Table S3). The mechanisms behind said underpredictions when using human liver microsomes are still unknown; however it has been attributed to factors such as the ionization, binding to plasma proteins, and clearance model inaccuracies Idoxuridine ( Berezhkovskiy, 2011, Hallifax et al., 2010, Hallifax

and Houston, 2012, Poulin, 2013 and Poulin et al., 2012). Simvastatin (BCS class 2) represent an interesting case that was not in agreement with the simulated Frel across the defined parameter space. Even though simvastatin is classified as BCS class 2 the CR formulation showed 2–3-fold higher relative bioavailability that the IR formulation. One of the reasons for such disagreement with the simulated data was the use of an enabling CR formulation in one of the simvastatin studies ( Tubic-Grozdanis et al., 2008). The formulation employed in the aforementioned study contained a mixture of gelatine and lecithin intended to improve the wettability of simvastatin in the formulation and promote the formation of microemulsions or even micelles, thus improving simvastatin’s dissolution.