Investigation of Possible Pharmacokinetic Interaction of Metformin with Sugar Replacement Sweeteners in Rats
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science Vol. 6 (10), pp. 210-215, October, 2016 Available online at http://www.japsonline.com DOI: 10.7324/JAPS.2016.601029 ISSN 2231-3354 Investigation of possible pharmacokinetic interaction of metformin with sugar replacement sweeteners in rats Riad Awad1, Eyad Mallah1, Israa Al-Ani2, Wael Abu Dayyih1*, Zainab Zakarya1, Tawfiq Arafat1 1 Faculty of Pharmacy and Medical Silences, University of Petra, Queen Alia International Road, P.O. Box: 961343, Amman – Jordan. 2 Faculty of Pharmacy and Medical Silences, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan. ABSTRACT ARTICLE INFO Article history: Metformin is widely used for type II diabetes. Sugar replacement sweeteners such as Aspartame and Stevia, are Received on: 09/07/2016 usually consumed concomitantly with other antidiabetics by patients The aim of this work is to investigate Revised on: 08/08/2016 possible effects of two types of sweeteners; stevia and aspartame on the pharmacokinetic parameters of Accepted on: 22/08/2016 metformin in rats. A simple, validated bio-analytical HPLC method was developed to measure metformin in rat Available online: 29/10/2016 plasma. Three groups of rats, each of eight were subjected to this study. The first group was given metformin solution 20mg/kg alone, the second group was given 20 mg/kg metformin with 4mg/kg stevia and the third Key words: group was given 20 mg/kg metformin with 10 mg/kg aspartame on fasting state. Blood samples were taken on Metformin, stevia, scheduled time interval up to 6 hours and analyzed for metformin concentration. Pharmacokinetic parameters aspartame, HPLC , were calculated by Non-Compartmental Model and data were interpreted. The results showed that Pharmacokinetic. administration of these two sweeteners did not have high effect on pharmacokinetics of metformin. INTRODUCTION is slow and the peak plasma concentration reaches between 2-5 Metformin is a biguanide oral hypoglycemic agent hours and food decreases both rate and extent of absorption (Dunn and Peters, 1995; Scheen, 1996). It has negligible plasma protein which is commonly used in type II diabetes mellitus. It was binding and it is excreted in urine as unchanged drug (Garry et al., introduced after the restriction of phenformin due to less side effect especially lactic acidosis (Berbman, 1978). It was 2015). Its excretion rate was found to correlate partially with approved by FDA 1n 1994.Metformin exerts its activity by creatinine clearance suggesting filtration through glomeruli. multiphase effects on GIT in lowering glucose absorption and However, its clearance is higher than that of creatinine which liver by inhibition of glucose synthesis as well as increasing suggests the involvement of active tubular secretion (Lipska et al., glucose uptake by cells without increasing the level of insulin 2011; Pentikäine, 2011). Metformin has an average volume of distribution for adults of 654 ± 358 L. (Hermann and Malender, 1992; Cusi and Defr, 1998). Several studies have described the pharmacokinetic behavior of This high volume of distribution of this polar compound is metformin after oral and parenteral administration. Metformin due to partitioning to RBCs as a function of time (Raj et al., 2011). has an oral bioavailability of 40-60% of the orally administered Artificial sweeteners are widely used nowadays especially by people dose under fasting conditions and the rest is recovered in feces with type II diabetes and people on special diet to avoid ingestion of (Al Hawari et al., 2007). Lack of dose proportionality, and the extra calories. Many types of sweeteners are found in the market; drug being a polar ionizable compound in the GIT, suggest the some of natural source and others are synthetic compounds. Some involvement of saturable mechanism of a transport system sweeteners have been withdrawn from the market; like cyclamate, for its carcinogenicity (O'Brien-Nabors, 2011). Stevia is a naturally (Müller et al., 2005; Lipton et al., 1992). The absorption process occurring material extracted from the plant Stevia rebaudiana which has been commercialized as a sweetener. Stevia contains two major * Corresponding Author Email : wabudayyih @ uop.edu.jo glycosides Stevioside and Rebaudioside. © 2016 Riad Awad et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License -NonCommercial- ShareAlikeUnported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/). Awad et al. / Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science 6 (10); 2016: 210-215 211 These two compounds are hundreds of times sweeter (MERCK). Methanol, water and acetonitrile were of HPLC grade than sugar (Raji and Mohamad, 2012). Stevia has been studied for (Chromanorm), Stevia (Qingdao Qingmei Biotech. Co. Ltd, China, its sugar lowering effect in type II diabetes. Some studies have 90% steviosideand 98% rebaudioside purity), Aspartame shown the sugar lowering effect of stevia compared to other (NIUTANG, China, 98%-102% purity). sweeteners such as regular sugar and aspartame (Gregersen et al., 2004; Anton et al., 2010; Dunn and Peters, 2000). HPLC method of analysis of metformin in rat plasma Aspartame is a non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar Instrument and Chromatographic conditions substituent in food and beverages. It is synthesized from two An HPLC (Finnigan Surveyor) was used in this study amino acids; aspartic acid and phenylalanine (Magnuson et al., and it composes of the following: ChromQuest software 4.2.34 2007). It was introduced in 1965 (Mazur, 1984), and since that Solvent delivery systems pump (LC Pump Plus), autosampler Plus, time there were many regulations regarding its safety for human UV-VIS Plus Detector, Hypersil Thermo Electron Corporation, (Butchko et al., 2002). Based on many studies , the European Food BDS C-18 Column (150 mm x 4.6 mm, 5μm) and computer Safety Authority stated in 2013 that aspartame is safe in human System, Windows XP, SP3. except for those who have phenylketonuria due to their inability to metabolize phenylalanine; the aspartame breakdown product Table 1: Chromatographic conditions of HPLC analysis of Metformin. Parameter Value (Stegink et al., 1977). Pump Flow Rate 0.9 ml/min Previous studies have described pharmacokinetic Autosampler Injection Volume 50 µl interaction between drugs and sugar replacement sweeteners like AutosamplerTemp. 10˚C pioglitazone HCl with sucralose (Tamimiet al., 2014). This made Column Oven Temp 25˚C Retension time (min.) studying these possible interactions of special importance. The aim Cefadroxil (Internal Std) 4.6 of this study is to investigate possible pharmacokinetic interaction Retension time (min.) Metformin 7 between metformin and both stevia and aspartame in rats. wavelength 234 nm EXPERIMENTAL Chromatographic conditions are described in Table (I). The mobile phase consisted of 90% water containing 7.5 mM Materials potassium dihydrogen phosphate buffer and 15 mM 1- Metformin and cefadroxil (the internal standard) were of hexanesulfonic acidsodium salt and 10% of acetonitrile was analytical purity grade and purchased from United circulated through a reversed-phase Thermo Scientific column Pharmaceuticals. 1-Hexanesulfonic acid sodium salt was (BDS HYPERSIL C 18) at a flow rate of 0.9 ml/minute. purchased from Chromanorm, potassium dihydrogen phosphate Absorbance was measured at wavelength 234 nm. The buffer was obtained from Scharlau, and trichloroacetic acid chromatogram is shown in Fig. 1. 40 40 Surveyor UV/VIS-234nm Name 30 30 20 20 Volts Volts 10 10 (IS) (Metformin) 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Minutes Fig. 1: Chromatogram showing metformin and cefadroxil (internal standard) peaks and retention time. 212 Awad et al. / Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science 6 (10); 2016: 210-215 Method of extraction was prepared by dissolving the powder in distilled water and the To perform the sample extraction, the following dose was 4 mg/Kg; an acceptable daily intake. Aspartame was procedure was followed: 150.0 µl aliquots of internal standard prepared by the same method and its dose was 10 mg/Kg which is (5µg/ml cefadroxil) by pipette. After the vortex of each sample an FDA acceptable daily intake. vigorously for 1.0 min., and the centrifugation at 14000 rpm for 15 The rats received a calculated volume of each solution minutes. A clear supernatant was transferred to a flat bottom insert according to their weights by using a stainless steel oral gavage and 50 µl was injected directly into HPLC system. needle. Rats were randomly divided into three groups each of 8 The described procedures were applied for subject animals. samples, standards and quality control samples. The first group received metformin, then the second group received metformin immediately followed by stevia Method validation solution. While the third group received metformin and aspartame Linearity, precision ,accuracy, limit of quantification and by the same method.Blood samples were taken from the tail vein recovery were measured according to EMEA guideline. Regarding into an EDTA containing micro-tubes at the following time points: linearity, seven calibration points (25ng/ml, 50 ng/ml, 200 ng/ml, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.5, 6.0 hours and stored at deep 500 ng/ml, 1000 ng/ml, 2000 ng/ml and 2500 ng/ml) were freezing (-20oC) until time of analysis. involved. Peak areas of the calibration standards were plotted against the nominal standard concentration. The linearity of the Pharmacokinetic analysis plotted curve was evaluated by calculation of the correlation Metformin was studied in both human and rat as a three 2 coefficient (R ) which was equal to0.999. compartmental model, but in other studies data fits one The intra-day precision and accuracy were evaluated by compartmental model (Sun et al., 2011, William et al., 2008). Also analyzing six replicas of the quality control (QC) samples (low, some studies results have also shown double peak phenomena mid, high) and lower limit of quantization (LLOQ) samples on a which does not appear in others (Stephen et al., 2008).