PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify and optimize spray drying parameters of importance for the design of an inhalable powder formulation of a cationic liposomal adjuvant composed of dimethyldioctadecylammonium (DDA) bromide and trehalose-6,6'-dibehenate (TDB). METHODS: A quality by design (QbD) approach was applied to identify and link critical process parameters (CPPs) of the spray drying process to critical quality attributes (CQAs) using risk assessment and design of experiments (DoE), followed by identification of an optimal operating space (OOS). A central composite face-centered design was carried out followed by multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Four CQAs were identified; the mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD), the liposome stability (size) during processing, the moisture content and the yield. Five CPPs (drying airflow, feed flow rate, feedstock concentration, atomizing airflow and outlet temperature) were identified and tested in a systematic way. The MMAD and the yield were successfully modeled. For the liposome size stability, the ratio between the size after and before spray drying was modeled successfully. The model for the residual moisture content was poor, although, the moisture content was below 3% in the entire design space. Finally, the OOS was drafted from the constructed models for the spray drying of trehalose stabilized DDA/TDB liposomes. CONCLUSIONS: The QbD approach for the spray drying process should include a careful consideration of the quality target product profile. This approach implementing risk assessment and DoE was successfully applied to optimize the spray drying of an inhalable DDA/TDB liposomal adjuvant designed for pulmonary vaccination.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify and optimize spray drying parameters of importance for the design of an inhalable powder formulation of a cationic liposomal adjuvant composed of dimethyldioctadecylammonium (DDA) bromide and trehalose-6,6'-dibehenate (TDB). METHODS: A quality by design (QbD) approach was applied to identify and link critical process parameters (CPPs) of the spray drying process to critical quality attributes (CQAs) using risk assessment and design of experiments (DoE), followed by identification of an optimal operating space (OOS). A central composite face-centered design was carried out followed by multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Four CQAs were identified; the mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD), the liposome stability (size) during processing, the moisture content and the yield. Five CPPs (drying airflow, feed flow rate, feedstock concentration, atomizing airflow and outlet temperature) were identified and tested in a systematic way. The MMAD and the yield were successfully modeled. For the liposome size stability, the ratio between the size after and before spray drying was modeled successfully. The model for the residual moisture content was poor, although, the moisture content was below 3% in the entire design space. Finally, the OOS was drafted from the constructed models for the spray drying of trehalose stabilized DDA/TDB liposomes. CONCLUSIONS: The QbD approach for the spray drying process should include a careful consideration of the quality target product profile. This approach implementing risk assessment and DoE was successfully applied to optimize the spray drying of an inhalable DDA/TDB liposomal adjuvant designed for pulmonary vaccination.
Authors: Jesper Davidsen; Ida Rosenkrands; Dennis Christensen; Anil Vangala; Daniel Kirby; Yvonne Perrie; Else Marie Agger; Peter Andersen Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Date: 2005-11-14
Authors: Tomás Sou; Els N Meeusen; Michael de Veer; David A V Morton; Lisa M Kaminskas; Michelle P McIntosh Journal: Trends Biotechnol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 19.536
Authors: Else Marie Agger; Ida Rosenkrands; Jon Hansen; Karima Brahimi; Brian S Vandahl; Claus Aagaard; Kerstin Werninghaus; Carsten Kirschning; Roland Lang; Dennis Christensen; Michael Theisen; Frank Follmann; Peter Andersen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-09-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Si Nga Wong; Jingwen Weng; Ignatius Ip; Ruipeng Chen; Richard Lakerveld; Richard Telford; Nicholas Blagden; Ian J Scowen; Shing Fung Chow Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 6.321