An Explanation of Why Dose-Corrected Area Under the Curve for Alternate Administration Routes Can Be Greater than for Intravenous Dosing.

It is generally believed that bioavailability (F) calculated based on systemic concentration area under the curve (AUC) measurements cannot exceed 1.0, yet some published studies report this inconsistency. We teach and believe, based on differential equation derivations, that rate of absorption has no influence on measured systemic clearance following an oral dose, i.e., determined as available dose divided by AUC. Previously, it was thought that any difference in calculating F from urine data versus that from systemic concentration AUC data was due to the inability to accurately measure urine data. A PubMed literature search for drugs exhibiting F > 1.0 and studies for which F was measured using both AUC and urinary excretion dose-corrected analyses yielded data for 35 drugs. We show and explain, using Kirchhoff's Laws, that these universally held concepts concerning bioavailability may not be valid in all situations. Bioavailability, determined using systemic concentration measurements, for many drugs may be overestimated since AUC reflects not only systemic elimination but also absorption rate characteristics, which is most easily seen for renal clearance measures. Clearance of drug from the absorption site must be significantly greater than clearance following an iv bolus dose for F(AUC) to correctly correspond with F(urine). The primary purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that studies resulting in F > 1.0 and/or greater systemic vs urine bioavailability predictions may be accurate. Importantly, these explications have no significant impact on current regulatory guidance for bioequivalence testing, nor on the use of exposure (AUC) measures in making drug dosing decisions.