Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 25:20:1065-1082.
doi: 10.2147/IJN.S497099. eCollection 2025.

Solid Self-Microemulsifying Drug Delivery System for Improved Oral Bioavailability of Relugolix: Preparation and Evaluation

Affiliations

Solid Self-Microemulsifying Drug Delivery System for Improved Oral Bioavailability of Relugolix: Preparation and Evaluation

Zi-Lin Li et al. Int J Nanomedicine. .

Abstract

Purpose: To improve the oral absorption of relugolix (RLGL), which has low oral bioavailability due to its low solubility and being a substrate of P-glycoprotein (P-gp). A solid self-microemulsifying drug delivery system of relugolix (RLGL-S-SMEDDS) was prepared and evaluated in vitro and in vivo.

Methods: The composition of the solid self-microemulsifying drug delivery system (S-SMEDDS) was selected by solubility study and pseudo-ternary phase diagram, and further optimized by Design-Expert optimization design. The optimized RLGL-S-SMEDDS were evaluated in terms of particle size, zeta potential, morphology analysis, thermodynamic stability, drug release, flow properties, transporter pathways in Caco-2 cells, the influence of excipients on the intestinal transporters, transport within Caco-2 cell monolayers and transport in lymphocyte. In vivo pharmacokinetic study and toxicological study were also conducted.

Results: The optimum formulation for self-microemulsifying drug delivery system (SMEDDS) consists of Ethyl Oleate (26% of the weight), Solutol HS15 (49% of the weight), Transcutol HP (25% of the weight) and loaded relugolix (4.8 mg/g). The S-SMEDDS was then formed by adsorbing 2.4 g of SMEDDS onto 1 g of hydrophilic-200 silica. In phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (pH 6.8) release medium containing 1% tween 80, the vitro release studies showed 86% cumulative drug release for RLGL-S-SMEDDS and 3.6% cumulative drug release for RLGL suspensions. In vitro cellular uptake experiments revealed that the uptake of RLGL-S-SMEDDS by Caco-2 cells was three times higher than that of free RLGL, and that S-SMEDDS can enhance the drug absorption through lymphatic absorption and inhibition of intestinal transporter. In vivo pharmacokinetic evaluation demonstrated that the oral bioavailability of RLGL-S-SMEDDS was 1.9 times higher than that of RLGL-suspensions. There was no apparent cardiac, hepatic, splenic, pulmonary or renal toxicity on the surface discovered by pathological analysis after oral administration.

Conclusion: It is evident that S-SMEDDS may be a safe and effective method to improve oral absorption of drugs with low oral bioavailability.

Keywords: P-glycoprotein; microemulsion; oral bioavailability; relugolix; solid self-microemulsifying drug delivery system (S-SMEDDS).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

None
Graphical abstract
Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Chemical structure of relugolix. Solubility of RLGL in various oils (B), surfactants (C) and co-surfactants (D). All values in μg/g, data are expressed as means ± SD (n=3).
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Pseudoternary phase diagrams of the system composed of oil (Ethyl Oleate), surfactant (Solutol HS15), cosurfactant (Transcutol HP) and water. The black regions represent the regions of microemulsion (n=3). (B) Response surface plots (3D) showing the effect of oil (X1) and Km (X2) additions on particle size and drug loading. (C) Size distribution of RLGL-SMEDDS in water. (D) Transmission electron micrograph of RLGL-SMEDDS 50 nm.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Solid carrier adsorption capacity (n=3). (B) In vitro release of RLGL under different pH conditions (n=3). In vitro release of Hydrophilic-200 silica (C) and sylysiak 320 (D) under different pH conditions (n=3).
Figure 4
Figure 4
(A) Scanning electron micrographs of RLGL, Hydrophilic-200 silica and RLGL-S- SMEDDS. (B) Power X-ray diffraction of RLGL, Hydrophilic-200 silica, Physical mixture of RLGL and Hydrophilic-200 silica, and RLGL-S-SMEDDS. (C) Cell viabilities of Caco-2 cells after 24 h treatment with free RLGL, S-SMEDDS, Transcutol HP and Solutol HS15 at equivalent doses of RLGL (n=3).
Figure 5
Figure 5
(A) Flow cytometric quantification of intracellular uptake of COU-S-SMEDDS and Free COU by Caco-2 cells after 3 h incubation at 37 °C (n=3). (B) Flow cytometric quantification of intracellular uptake of COU, COU+Elacridar, COU+Verapamil and COU+Probenecid in Caco-2 cells (n=3). (C) Flow cytometric quantification of intracellular uptake of S-SMEDDS, S-SMEDDS +Elacridar, S-SMEDDS+Verapamil and S-SMEDDS+Probenecid in Caco-2 cells (n=3). (D) Flow cytometric quantification of intracellular uptake of COU, COU + Ethyl Oleate, COU +Transcutol HP and COU+Solutol HS15 in Caco-2 cells (n=3). Statistical difference between groups: p > 0.05 ns and p < 0.01**.
Figure 6
Figure 6
(A) the apparent permeability coefficient (Papp) of COU and S-SMEDDS. (B) the apparent permeability coefficient (Papp) of COU with Solutol HS15, Ethyl Oleate and Transcutol HP (n=3). (C) Transmembrane resistance for Caco-2 cell monolayer and co-culture model with lymphocytes for 21 days (n=3). (D) The apparent permeability coefficient (Papp) of COU and S-SMEDDS in Caco-2 cells monolayer and co-culture model with lymphocytes (n=3). Statistical difference between groups: p > 0.05 ns and p < 0.001***.
Figure 7
Figure 7
(A) Blood concentration-time profiles after oral administration of RLGL-S-SMEDDS and RLGL-suspensions (n=6). (B) Histological examination of heart, liver, spleen, lung and kidney tissues from animals treated with PBS, Solutol HS15, Transcutol HP and S-SMEDDS by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, scale bar 200 mm.

Similar articles

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):7–33. doi:10.3322/caac.21654 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shafrir AL, Farland LV, Shah DK, et al. Risk for and consequences of endometriosis: a critical epidemiologic review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.06.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Huirne JAF, Lambalk CB. Gonadotropin-releasing-hormone-receptor antagonists. Lancet. 2001;358(9295):1793–1803. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06797-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Osuga Y, Seki Y, Tanimoto M, et al. Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist, reduces endometriosis-associated pain in a dose-response manner: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(2):397–405. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.07.055 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Saad F, Shore ND. Relugolix: a novel androgen deprivation therapy for management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2021;13:1758835921998586. doi:10.1177/1758835921998586 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources