Use of an orally administered combined sugar solution to evaluate intestinal absorption and permeability in cats

Urinary recovery of orally administered chromium 51–labeled EDTA, lactulose, rhamnose, d-xylose, 3-O-methyl-d-glucose, and sucrose in healthy adult male Beagles

Objective—To provide values for gastrointestinal permeability and absorptive function tests (GIPFTs) with chromium 51 (51Cr)-labeled EDTA, lactulose, rhamnose, d-xylose, 3-O-methyl-d-glucose, and sucrose in Beagles and to evaluate potential correlations between markers.

Animals—19 healthy adult male Beagles.

Procedures—A test solution containing 3.7 MBq of 51Cr-labeled EDTA, 2 g of lactulose, 2 g of rhamnose, 2 g of d-xylose, 1 g of 3-O-methyl-d-glucose, and 8 g of sucrose was administered intragastrically to each dog. Urinary recovery of each probe was determined 6 hours after administration.

Results—Mean ± SD (range) percentage urinary recovery was 6.3 ± 1.6% (4.3% to 9.7%) for 51Cr-labeled EDTA, 3.3 ± 1.1% (1.7% to 5.3%) for lactulose, 25.5 ± 5.0% (16.7% to 36.9%) for rhamnose, and 58.8% ± 11.0% (40.1% to 87.8%) for 3-O-methyl-d-glucose. Mean (range) recovery ratio was 0.25 ± 0.06 (0.17 to 0.37) for 51Cr-labeled EDTA to rhamnose, 0.13 ± 0.04 (0.08 to 0.23) for lactulose to rhamnose, and 0.73 ± 0.09 (0.60 to 0.90) for d-xylose to 3-O-methyl-d-glucose. Median (range) percentage urinary recovery was 40.3% (31.6% to 62.7%) for d-xylose and 0% (0% to 0.8%) for sucrose.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Reference values in healthy adult male Beagles for 6 of the most commonly used GIPFT markers were determined. The correlation between results for 51Cr-labeled EDTA and lactulose was not as prominent as that reported for humans and cats; thus, investigators should be cautious in the use and interpretation of GIPFTs performed with sugar probes in dogs with suspected intestinal dysbiosis.

Companion animal physiology and dosage form performance

Among the most critical parameters for any drug candidate are tolerability, dose, solubility and permeability. For controlled release formulations, gastrointestinal transit is an added hurdle. While we might assume that intestinal transit is independent of the drug candidate, the relative importance of gastrointestinal transit time (GITT) depends directly on the other parameters. For example, a formulation of a drug with low solubility (LS) and/or low permeability (LP) characteristics might provide the required systemic concentrations when administered with food, but not if administered on an empty stomach. In the LS case, the drug may require the solubilizing effects of increased fluid and bile salts that accompany the meal. Likewise, a controlled release formulation of a drug with a region of preferred absorption may empty from the fasted stomach and move beyond the region before drug release is complete. Companion animals (e.g. cats and dogs) differ from humans and each other with respect to GITT, food effects, eating habit influences, breed and size variability, gastric pH, intestinal enzymes, GI permeability and absorption regions. This review examines how the anatomy and physiology of companion animals relates to the performance of orally administered immediate and controlled release formulations. Examples are presented of techniques used to predict the dose and acceptable solubility of drug candidates, and the performance of formulations in companion animals.

Influence of age and body size on intestinal permeability and absorption in healthy dogs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effects of age and body size of dogs on intestinal permeability (unmediated diffusion) as measured by the ratio of urinary lactulose to L-rhamnose (L:R) and absorption (carrier-mediated transport) as measured by the ratio of urinary D-xylose to 3-O-methyl-D-glucose (X:MG) and to determine whether these variables correlated with fecal quality.

ANIMALS

6 Miniature Poodles, 6 Standard Schnauzers, 6 Giant Schnauzers, and 6 Great Danes.

PROCEDURE

A solution that contained lactulose and rhamnose or xylose and 3-O-methyl-D-glucose was administered orally to dogs that were 12, 22, 36, and 60 weeks old. Urine was collected 6 hours later, and urinary L:R and X:MG were calculated. Fecal moisture and scoring were recorded during the same periods.

RESULTS

Age and breed did not affect intestinal absorption, and we did not detect a relationship between X:MG and fecal variables. In contrast, we detected significant effects of age and body size on intestinal permeability. Puppies (12 weeks old) and large dogs had higher intestinal permeability than adult (60 weeks old) and small dogs. The increased intestinal permeability in large dogs was associated with lower fecal quality as indicated by the significant positive correlations between L:R and fecal moisture (r, 0.61) and L:R and fecal scores (r, 0.86) in adult dogs.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These results indicate that age and body size should be considered when assessing intestinal permeability by use of the L:R urinary excretion test in dogs. High intestinal permeability could be a possible cause of poor fecal quality in large dogs.