BACKGROUND: Complaints from healthcare providers that the adhesive on the Daytrana™ methylphenidate transdermal drug delivery system (TDDS) adhered to the release liner to such an extent that the release liner could not be removed prompted this study. Daytrana™ has a packaging system consisting of a moisture-permeable pouch contained within a sealed tray containing a desiccant; the tray is impermeable to ambient moisture. The objective of this project was to determine if the Daytrana™ packaging system influenced the difficulty in removing the release liner. METHOD: Both a sealed tray and an open tray containing sealed pouches were placed into an environmental chamber at 25°C and 60% relative humidity for 30 days; afterwards, release liner removal testing using a peel angle of 90° and a peel speed of 300 mm/min was performed. RESULTS: TDDS from open chamber trays required less force to remove the release liner than did TDDS from closed chamber trays. For the 10 mg/9 h TDDS and the 15 mg/9 h TDDS (the dosages examined), there were substantial differences in release liner removal force between an old lot and a new lot for closed chamber trays but not for open chamber trays. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that for this particular TDDS, storage conditions such as humidity influence release liner adhesion. This project also demonstrates that, to ensure adequate product quality, adhesion needs to become an important design parameter, and the design of a TDDS should consider the ability to remove the release liner under anticipated storage conditions.
BACKGROUND: Complaints from healthcare providers that the adhesive on the Daytrana™ methylphenidate transdermal drug delivery system (TDDS) adhered to the release liner to such an extent that the release liner could not be removed prompted this study. Daytrana™ has a packaging system consisting of a moisture-permeable pouch contained within a sealed tray containing a desiccant; the tray is impermeable to ambient moisture. The objective of this project was to determine if the Daytrana™ packaging system influenced the difficulty in removing the release liner. METHOD: Both a sealed tray and an open tray containing sealed pouches were placed into an environmental chamber at 25°C and 60% relative humidity for 30 days; afterwards, release liner removal testing using a peel angle of 90° and a peel speed of 300 mm/min was performed. RESULTS: TDDS from open chamber trays required less force to remove the release liner than did TDDS from closed chamber trays. For the 10 mg/9 h TDDS and the 15 mg/9 h TDDS (the dosages examined), there were substantial differences in release liner removal force between an old lot and a new lot for closed chamber trays but not for open chamber trays. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that for this particular TDDS, storage conditions such as humidity influence release liner adhesion. This project also demonstrates that, to ensure adequate product quality, adhesion needs to become an important design parameter, and the design of a TDDS should consider the ability to remove the release liner under anticipated storage conditions.
Authors: Sindhu S Ganti; Sonalika A Bhattaccharjee; Kevin S Murnane; Bruce E Blough; Ajay K Banga Journal: Int J Pharm Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 5.875