Caitlin J Schram1, Stephen P Beaudoin, Lynne S Taylor. 1. Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, and ‡Department of Industrial and Physical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Purdue University , West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, United States.
Abstract
Poor aqueous solubility is a major hindrance to oral delivery of many emerging drugs. Supersaturated drug solutions can improve passive absorption across the gastrointestinal tract membrane as long as crystallization can be inhibited, enhancing the delivery of such poorly soluble therapeutics. Polymers can inhibit crystallization and prolong supersaturation; therefore, it is desirable to understand the attributes which render a polymer effective. In this study, the conformation of a polymer adsorbed to a crystal surface and its impact on crystal growth inhibition were investigated. The crystal growth rate of a poorly soluble pharmaceutical compound, felodipine, was measured in the presence of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose acetate succinate (HPMCAS) at two different pH conditions: pH 3 and pH 6.8. HPMCAS was found to be a less effective growth rate inhibitor at pH 3, below its pKa. It was expected that the ionization state of HPMCAS would most likely influence its conformation at the solid-liquid interface. Further investigation with atomic force microscopy (AFM) revealed significant differences in the conformation of HPMCAS adsorbed to felodipine at the two pH conditions. At pH 3, HPMCAS formed coiled globules on the surface, whereas at pH 6.8, HPMCAS adsorbed more uniformly. Thus, it appeared that the reduced effectiveness of HPMCAS at pH 3 was directly related to its conformation. The globule formation leaves many felodipine growth sites open and available for growth units to attach, rendering the polymer less effective as a growth rate inhibitor.
Poor aqueous solubility is a major hindrance to oral delivery of many emerging drugs. Supersaturated drug solutions can improve passive absorption across the gastrointestinal tract membrane as long as crystallization can be inhibited, enhancing the delivery of such poorly soluble therapeutics. Polymers can inhibit crystallization and prolong supersaturation; therefore, it is desirable to understand the attributes which render a polymer effective. In this study, the conformation of a polymer adsorbed to a crystal surface and its impact on crystal growth inhibition were investigated. The crystal growth rate of a poorly soluble pharmaceutical compound, felodipine, was measured in the presence of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose acetate succinate (HPMCAS) at two different pH conditions: pH 3 and pH 6.8. HPMCAS was found to be a less effective growth rate inhibitor at pH 3, below its pKa. It was expected that the ionization state of HPMCAS would most likely influence its conformation at the solid-liquid interface. Further investigation with atomic force microscopy (AFM) revealed significant differences in the conformation of HPMCAS adsorbed to felodipine at the two pH conditions. At pH 3, HPMCAS formed coiled globules on the surface, whereas at pH 6.8, HPMCAS adsorbed more uniformly. Thus, it appeared that the reduced effectiveness of HPMCAS at pH 3 was directly related to its conformation. The globule formation leaves many felodipine growth sites open and available for growth units to attach, rendering the polymer less effective as a growth rate inhibitor.
Manipulating crystal formation
is of fundamental importance to
several fields including biomineralization, organic electronics, and
drug delivery. While the impact of polymers on inorganic crystallization[1,2] and the effect of low molecular weight additives on organic crystallization[3,4] have been widely studied, polymeric modification of crystallization
in aqueous solutions of low molecular weight organic molecules is
not widely understood.There is growing interest in combining
polymers with poorly water-soluble
drugs to form amorphous drug–polymer blends, with the goal
of enhancing oral bioavailability.[5,6] The amorphous
system is expected to generate a supersaturated solution in
vivo upon dissolution.[7,8] This is because the
amorphous form possesses higher free energy and enthalpy compared
to the crystalline form and has no long-range molecular order.[9−11] Thus, the energy required to dissolve an amorphous solid is significantly
decreased relative to the crystalline form. Supersaturated solutions
lead to higher membrane flux rates and hence can significantly improve
passive drug absorption.[5,6,12−14] Therefore, amorphous drug–polymer blends can
be used to improve the delivery of drugs with solubility-limited absorption.
This is a pressing issue since it is estimated that up to 80% of investigational
drugs have suboptimum aqueous solubility.[15] The success of this strategy can be highlighted with two examples
of recently approved therapies: the protease inhibitor telaprevir[5] which is used to treat hepatitis C infections
and the B-Raf inhibitor, vemurafenib,[6] used
for melanoma. Both were developed as amorphous formulations in order
to achieve adequate clinical efficacy, which could not be achieved
with a crystalline form of the drug.The supersaturated solutions
generated from amorphous solids will
typically crystallize very rapidly because of the strong thermodynamic
driving force.[8] Consequently, employing
additives that slow crystallization is critical when using supersaturating
dosage forms. Additives can effectively stabilize supersaturated solutions
by either disrupting nucleation or inhibiting crystal growth by adsorbing
to growth sites and acting as a mechanical barrier[16−18] Recently, there
have been increased efforts to determine the factors that impact the
effectiveness of polymers as crystal growth inhibitors. Key factors
thought to be of importance are the hydrophobicity match between the
polymer and drug[19,20] and the ability of the polymer
to form specific interactions via hydrogen bonds to the drug.[21,22] In a recent study, it was observed that pH impacted the effectiveness
of several ionizable polymers.[23] The polymers
were consistently more effective at higher pH where they were highly
ionized, despite having a similar extent of adsorption to the crystal
at both pH values. A number of studies have shown that pH affects
polymer conformation.[24−26] When a polymer is ionized, the charged functional
groups will self-repulse, causing the polymer chain to extend. In
the un-ionized state, the polymer will coil due to intramolecular
hydrogen bonding.[26] Roiter and Minko confirmed
these conformational transitions of poly(2-vinylpyridine) chains in
aqueous solution as a function of pH using atomic force microscopy
(AFM).[27]The objective of this study
was to investigate the conformation
of polymers on the surface of a crystalline drug as a function of
pH. It is hypothesized that pH influences the conformation of the
adsorbed polymers at the solid–liquid interface and that these
changes in polymer conformation impact their ability to inhibit crystal
growth. To test this hypothesis, the growth rate of the model compound,
felodipine, was measured in the absence and presence of the ionic
polymer, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose acetate succinate (HPMCAS),
at different pH conditions. The conformation of HPMCAS adsorbed to
felodipine at these same pH conditions was characterized using AFM
phase imaging.
Theoretical Considerations
The fundamental driving force for crystallization in solution is
the difference in solute chemical potential between the supersaturated
and saturated solutions.[28] This is often
expressed in terms of the concentration difference between the solutions
or the supersaturation ratio (S)[29]where C and Ceq are the supersaturated
and equilibrium solution concentrations.
The overall growth rate (RG) can then
be expressed as[29−31]where kG is the
growth rate coefficient and g is the overall growth
order. The growth order is an empirically fitted parameter, with a
value typically between 1 and 2, depending on whether diffusion of
growth units to the surface or integration into the lattice is the
rate-limiting step.[32]For crystal
growth to occur, a stable nucleus of critical size
must first form or be present in the supersaturated solution.[29] There are many proposed mechanisms for crystal
growth once this nucleus has formed. Many of these are based on the
step growth model, developed by Kossel, which is an adsorption layer
theory in which crystals grow in a monolayer stepwise fashion from
the critical nucleus.[33]When polymers
are added to the system, they can inhibit growth
by competing for growth unit adsorption sites. To be effective, the
polymers need not adsorb to every available growth site; rather, they
must disturb the flow of growth layers.[29] Cabrera and Vermilyea first proposed the pinning mechanism,[34] in which the impurities adsorb to the growth
layers at an average distance (l) apart and impede
step advancement. The extent to which step growth is inhibited depends
on the radius of the critical nucleus (ρc) relative
to l. Based on the Kubota–Mullin model,[16,35] crystal growth rate in the presence of polymers can be expressed
aswhere RP and R0 are the
overall crystal growth rates in the
presence and absence of polymer. Thus, a smaller value for l corresponds to greater polymer effectiveness.
Experimental Section
Materials
Felodipine was provided
by Attix (Toronto, Ontario, Canada). Methanol was purchased from Avantor
Performance Materials (Center Valley, PA). The carboxylated polymer
used in this study was hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose acetate succinate
(HPMCAS) grade LF, MW 18 000 g
mol–1, provided by Shin-Etsu Chemical Co, Ltd. (Tokyo,
Japan) in powder form. The crystallization and adsorption media used
in the growth and AFM experiments were 50 mM pH 3 phosphate buffer
and 50 mM pH 6.8 phosphate buffer. The chemical structures of felodipine
and HPMCAS are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Chemical structures
of (a) felodipine and (b) the repeating monomer
unit of HPMCAS.
Chemical structures
of (a) felodipine and (b) the repeating monomer
unit of HPMCAS.
Crystal
Growth Rate Measurements
The effectiveness of HPMCAS as a
crystal growth inhibitor was investigated
at pH 3 and pH 6.8 by measuring the growth rate of felodipine in the
absence and presence of HPMCAS. The pH values of 3 and 6.8 were chosen
for this study because HPMCAS grade LF has a pKa of 5.5. Thus, HPMCAS will be in different ionization states
at the two experimental pH values. These pH values are also of physiological
relevance since the stomach has an acidic pH while the small intestine
is closer to neutral pH. The concentration of felodipine in solution
as a function of time was measured to create a desupersaturation profile.
This profile is considered to be directly proportional to the overall
growth rate of felodipine. The effectiveness (Eg) of HPMCAS was then expressed as a ratio of the measured
growth rateswhere R0 and RP represent the growth
rate of felodipine in
the absence and presence of HPMCAS, respectively. Therefore, when Eg > 1, the polymer is considered to be effective.Felodipine seed crystals were prepared by first melting felodipine
crystals, as supplied from the manufacturer, and recrystallizing the
melt by exposure to an atmosphere of 75% relative humidity. Seed crystals
were mounted on a rotating disc apparatus (RDA) which was set to a
constant rotational speed, 1000 rpm, to ensure that the growth rate
coefficient, kG (eq 2), remained constant between experiments.[36−38] A stock solution
of 10 mg/mL solubilized felodipine was prepared by dissolving felodipine
in methanol. Supersaturated aqueous solutions were then generated
by adding stock solution to pH 6.8 or pH 3 buffer. For felodipine, Ceq is approximately 0.5 μg/mL at 25 °C.[39] The initial felodipine solution concentration
for growth experiments was 4 μg/mL in the absence and presence
of 5 μg/mL HPMCAS. Stock solutions of 5 μg/mL HPMCAS were
generated by dissolving the powder as provided in pH 6.8 or pH 3 buffer
and mixing for 24 h. The aqueous solubility of HPMCAS is low at pH
3 compared to pH 6.8. Thus, highly concentrated solutions at pH 3
appear cloudy. However, at the low HPMCAS concentration used in this
study (5 μg/mL), the solution is clear, indicating that the
polymer is completely dissolved and does not form agglomerates in
solution at the experimental concentration.Desupersaturation
profiles were measured using a CDC Array UV–vis
spectrometer (SI Photonics, Tuscon, AZ) under isothermal conditions
(25 °C). Data collection began immediately after generation of
supersaturated solutions. The intensity of an absorbance peak of felodipine
(wavelength 360 nm) was recorded at 10 s intervals for 1 h. All experiments
were performed in triplicate. Calibration solutions, prepared in methanol
were used to correlate peak intensity to concentration. The slope
of the resulting concentration vs time curve was recorded as the growth
rate, R0 or RP in the absence or presence of HPMCAS, respectively.
Atomic Force Microscopy
Atomic force
microscopy (MultiMode 8 AFM, Bruker Corporation, Technology Forest,
TX) was used to characterize adsorbed HPMCAS on crystallized felodipine.
HPMCAS was added to phosphate buffer (0.2 mg/mL) and dissolved by
stirring for up to 24 h. Seed crystals grown from the melt were exposed
to polymer solutions using the RDA at 200 rpm for 2 h. The surface
was not allowed to dry after adsorption. Samples were removed from
the RDA holder, and characterization with AFM commenced immediately.
Images were taken in fluid using Tapping Mode with NPG-10 silicon
nitride triangular probes (Bruker Corporation, Technology Forest,
TX) with 0.24 N/m spring constant and 30 nm radius of curvature. The
scan rate was set to 0.4 Hz, and scan resolution was set to 512 ×
512 pixels2. Characterization was conducted in the same
liquid as that used for the adsorption step. For samples characterized
at both pH conditions, the pH of the medium was increased using sodium
hydroxide; otherwise, the medium was the same as for the adsorption
study. Height images and phase images were taken simultaneously. Incubation
times ranged from 3 to 5 h. Several crystallographic planes were identified
as being present on the recrystallized amorphous films, as determined
by measuring the angles between the faces (Figure S1 and Table T1).
Polymer adsorption was observed, for example, on the (1 1 −1),
(1 −2 −2), and (1 −1 1) faces. Each of these
faces presents a different surface chemistry (Figures S2–S4), with potential exposure of multiple
functional groups including methyl, chlorine, and oxygen atoms. No
difference could be discerned in the density of HPMCAS adsorption
between these three faces, suggesting that adsorption is nonspecific.
No changes in the drug surface were detected over the time frame of
the experiments.
AFM Coupled with Infrared
Spectroscopy (AFM-IR)
Infrared images coupled with AFM were
obtained using nanoIR AFM
(Anasys Instruments, Santa Barbara, CA). Images were acquired using
C-450 silicon cantilever probes in contact mode. An OPO nanosecond
laser illuminated the sample at wavelengths characteristic to felodipine
and HPMCAS. Upon irradiation, the sample expanded and contracted depending
on how much infrared illumination was absorbed, causing the AFM cantilever
probe to oscillate a corresponding amount.[40] Using this approach, IR spectra from submicron domains can be obtained.
IR spectra and images were thus obtained by recording the amplitude
at various sample locations. IR spectra from 1620 to 1800 cm–1 were acquired in increments of 4 cm–1 with 128
laser pulses per wavelength. IR images were obtained by irradiating
the sample at 1700 and 1720 cm–1 at a scan rate
of 0.1 Hz.
AFM-IR Sample Preparation
Samples
characterized with AFM-IR were prepared directly on a ZnSe prism.
A small drop of a 5 mg/mL methanolic solution of felodipine was placed
on the prism and allowed to evaporate, creating a smooth, thin crystalline
film. The method used to adsorb HPMCAS to the film was designed to
mimic the adsorption method for samples characterized with fluid cell
AFM. The ZnSe prism was suspended in buffer solution containing dissolved
HPMCAS at a concentration of 0.2 mg/mL, such that the crystalline
film was in contact with the solution. The solution was stirred for
1 h. Upon removal from contact with the solution, the prism was dried
with nitrogen to remove remaining liquid and any HPMCAS that was not
adsorbed.
Results and Discussion
Polymer Effectiveness
Plots of felodipine
concentration as a function of time in the absence and presence of
dissolved HPMCAS are shown in Figure 2. The
slopes of the profiles for pure felodipine (R0) and felodipine in the presence of HPMCAS (RP) were measured from the data. Table 1 displays the values of R0/RP in order to compare the effectiveness of HPMCAS
at reducing the growth rate of crystalline felodipine at pH 3 and
pH 6.8. While R0/RP > 1 at both pH conditions, indicating that growth is reduced,
the effectiveness at pH 3 is decreased by a factor of about 1.8. A
similar trend was observed for ritonavir and several carboxylated
cellulosepolymers.[23,41] In these studies, the authors
determined that the decrease in effectiveness was not due to a decrease
in adsorption at the lower pH condition. Rather, the authors speculated
that the difference in effectiveness might be due to changes in polymer
conformation.
Figure 2
Desupersaturation of felodipine (initial S of
8) in the absence of HPMCAS (◆) and in the presence of 5 μg/mL
HPMCAS at pH 3 (red ■) and pH 6.8 (blue ▲). Crystal
growth rate experiments were performed in triplicate, and each data
point represents the mean. Error bars indicate one standard deviation
from the mean.
Table 1
Effectiveness
Crystal Growth Rate
Ratio (Eg = R0/RP) of HPMCAS for Felodipine at pH 3
and pH 6.8
pH
R0/RP
3
1.28
6.8
2.29
Desupersaturation of felodipine (initial S of
8) in the absence of HPMCAS (◆) and in the presence of 5 μg/mL
HPMCAS at pH 3 (red ■) and pH 6.8 (blue ▲). Crystal
growth rate experiments were performed in triplicate, and each data
point represents the mean. Error bars indicate one standard deviation
from the mean.The pKa of HPMCAS
is 5.5; therefore,
it is nearly completely ionized at pH 6.8 and un-ionized at pH 3.
Based on this information, and the literature previously mentioned,[24−27] it is hypothesized that HPMCAS will be in an extended chain conformation
at pH 6.8 and form compact coils at pH 3.
Polymer
Conformation
Atomic force
microscopy (AFM) was used to analyze the conformation of adsorbed
HPMCAS on felodipine and to provide insight into how the conformation
impacts polymer effectiveness. It should be noted that AFM analysis
revealed the same felodipine crystal morphology regardless of growth
conditions (pH or presence of polymer); therefore, change to crystal
morphology is likely not the cause of changes in growth rate. Figures 3a and 3b show AFM phase contrast
images of the polymer adsorbed to the crystal surface at pH 3 and
6.8. A phase contrast image of the pure drug with no adsorbed polymer
is shown in Figure 3c for comparison. Phase
contrast imaging is sensitive to changes in material properties, such
as viscoelasticity,[42] making it an ideal
method for detecting adsorbed polymers.
Figure 3
2 μm × 2 μm
AFM phase images of (a) HPMCAS adsorbed
to felodipine at pH 3, (b) HPMCAS adsorbed to felodipine at pH 6.8,
and (c) felodipine with no HPMCAS adsorbed. Images were captured in
liquid at room temperature with an incubation time of about 3 h.
2 μm × 2 μm
AFM phase images of (a) HPMCAS adsorbed
to felodipine at pH 3, (b) HPMCAS adsorbed to felodipine at pH 6.8,
and (c) felodipine with no HPMCAS adsorbed. Images were captured in
liquid at room temperature with an incubation time of about 3 h.The results qualitatively confirm
differences in HPMCAS conformation
at the solid–liquid interface as a function of pH. The dark
spots in Figure 3a are evidence of distinct
globules of HPMCAS adsorbed to the crystalline drug surface at pH
3. In contrast, at pH 6.8, the AFM reveals dark shading (Figure 3b) over the entire surface. This dark shading is
not present in the image of pure drug (Figure 3c); thus, it is indicative of extended polymer chains dispersed across
the drug surface. These results are in qualitative agreement with
the proposed hypothesis. Specifically, the adsorbed polymer, when
ionized, extends itself across the surface in order to isolate the
charges present on its functional groups, while the un-ionizedpolymer
does not suffer from internal electrostatic repulsion and can remain
coiled.Quantitative analysis of the topography of HPMCAS adsorbed
to felodipine
at both pH conditions can provide insight into how these changes in
conformation impact the effectiveness of HPMCAS. Cross sections of
the surface topography at both pH conditions are presented in Figure 4. The cross section of the surface at pH 6.8 (Figure 4a) reveals a relatively even height distribution
and small topographical features up to about 0.8 nm in height. The
molecular diameter of glucose (an approximate surrogate for the monomer
units of HPMCAS) is about 0.75 nm, which is consistent with these
height variations. Thus, it can be deduced that the polymer chains
lay parallel to the surface, and therefore may be able to cover multiple
growth sites.
Figure 4
AFM cross-sectional height analyses of HPMCAS adsorbed
to felodipine
at (a) pH 6.8, revealing a relatively even height distribution, and
at (b, c) pH 3 illustrating sample globule dimensions and standard
distances between adjacent globules. AFM images were captured in liquid
at room temperature with an incubation time of 3–5 h.
AFM cross-sectional height analyses of HPMCAS adsorbed
to felodipine
at (a) pH 6.8, revealing a relatively even height distribution, and
at (b, c) pH 3 illustrating sample globule dimensions and standard
distances between adjacent globules. AFM images were captured in liquid
at room temperature with an incubation time of 3–5 h.Figure 4b shows a cross section of the surface
at pH 3. Instead of many small topographical features, one large feature
is present which has a radius of about 17 nm and a height of about
2 nm, providing an example of the size and shape of the adsorbed polymer
globules at pH 3. The average radius (r) of all globules
present on a 1.5 μm × 1.5 μm area was determined
to be 15.4 nm using ImageJ analysis[43] as
shown in Figure 5. The average height (h) was found to be 2.98 nm using cross-sectional analysis.
These dimensions were applied to determine the average globule volume
by modeling the globule as a spherical cap:[44]From this equation, the average globule volume
was determined to be 1.05 × 10–3 nm3. Given this volume as well as the polymer density and molecular
weight provided by the manufacturer, it was determined that an average
of ∼46 HPMCAS molecules were present in each globule.
Figure 5
ImageJ analysis of HPMCAS adsorbed to felodipine at pH
3. Analysis
reveals polymer surface coverage and average globule size. Scale bar
is 500 nm.
Figure 4c provides an illustration of the
distance between globules on the crystalline drug surface at pH 3,
whereby it can be seen that the distance between any two globules
ranged from 25 to 50 nm. Further analysis using ImageJ (Figure 5) revealed the average distance between globules
to be about 44 nm.ImageJ analysis of HPMCAS adsorbed to felodipine at pH
3. Analysis
reveals polymer surface coverage and average globule size. Scale bar
is 500 nm.These results provide a mechanistic
understanding of the role of
polymer conformation on growth inhibition. The fact that multiple
polymer molecules are present in each globule at pH 3 explains why
polymer adsorption did not decrease at the lower pH condition in the
study by Ilevbare et al. previously mentioned.[23] The key consideration is the large distance between globules
at pH 3. These spaces between globules leave a large number of felodipine
growth sites open and available for growth units to attach; the molecular
diameter of a felodipine molecule is about 0.9 nm, which is approximately
50 times smaller than the determined average distance between globules.
From eq 3, it is clear that as this average
distance between globules, l, increases, the ratio RP/R0 increases.
Thus, the effectiveness factor, Eg (eq 4), will be reduced at pH 3, which agrees with the
results displayed in Figure 2 and Table 1. Conversely, the extended polymer chain conformation
observed at pH 6.8 should have the ability to block more than one
growth site, either by adsorbing to multiple sites or by creating
a barrier for growth units attaching to neighboring sites due to the
extension of the chain, rendering HPMCAS more effective at pH 6.8.To determine if adsorbed polymer conformation is reversible, HPMCAS
was adsorbed to felodipine at pH 3, and the topography was immediately
characterized with AFM in pH 3 solution. The pH of the solution over
the sample was then increased to pH 6.8, and the topography of the
same location on the sample was characterized again. The results,
displayed in Figure 6, show a change upon increasing
the pH. At pH 3, the coiled polymer chains are revealed as distinct
spots in Figure 6a. Despite the presence of
less obvious spots in the phase image at pH 6.8 (Figure 6b), the corresponding topographical scan at pH 6.8 (Figure 6d) reveals that the polymer chains are no longer
arranged in a compact globular formation. This change in conformation
is especially clear when compared to the topography at pH 3 (Figure 6c).
Figure 6
(a) 2 μm × 2 μm AFM phase image and (c)
corresponding
3D height image topography of HPMCAS adsorbed to felodipine at pH
3. (b) AFM phase image and (d) corresponding 3D height image topography
of the same area after the pH of the system was increased to 6.8.
Images were captured in liquid at room temperature with an incubation
time of 5 h.
(a) 2 μm × 2 μm AFM phase image and (c)
corresponding
3D height image topography of HPMCAS adsorbed to felodipine at pH
3. (b) AFM phase image and (d) corresponding 3D height image topography
of the same area after the pH of the system was increased to 6.8.
Images were captured in liquid at room temperature with an incubation
time of 5 h.Computation of the root-mean-square
roughness of a 1.5 μm
× 1.5 μm area at both pH conditions reveal a 29.3% decrease
in surface roughness at pH 6.8 compared to pH 3. This quantitatively
confirms that the polymer chains are no longer coiled when the pH
is increased to 6.8. Polymer adsorption is typically considered to
be irreversible; however, it is possible that after the pH increases
polymer chains that were previously coiled in a globule but not adsorbed
will diffuse into the bulk solution and adsorb elsewhere on the surface.
However, the phase image at pH 6.8 (Figure 6b) reveals dark spots, unlike Figure 3b. It
can be deduced that these spots in Figure 6b represent a large density of extended polymer chains in the location
of the pre-existing globules. This result suggests that when the polymers
become ionized and extend, it is not likely that they migrate away
from their original cluster to open growth sites on the surface within
the time frame of these experiments. Rather, they extend to occupy
growth sites in the local vicinity of their original deposition coordinate.To summarize, the conformation of HPMCAS adsorbed on a crystalline
felodipine surface is pH-dependent. At pH 6.8, above its pKa, HPMCAS is ionized; therefore, its functional
groups will self-repulse and the polymer chains will extend. This
has a favorable effect on the polymer’s ability to inhibit
crystal growth because it allows for more extensive growth site coverage
for a given mass of deposited polymer. At pH 3, below its pKa, HPMCAS is un-ionized, and the polymer chains
remain coiled due to intramolecular bonding. It is now known that
multiple coils will combine, forming globules on the surface of the
drug. This has an unfavorable impact on the polymer’s ability
to inhibit crystal growth because it leaves growth sites vacant for
drug growth units to attach.
Chemical Identification
of Polymer Adsorption
To confirm chemically that HPMCAS adsorbs
to felodipine, the drug
was characterized with infrared spectroscopy coupled with AFM (AFM-IR)
before and after exposure to HPMCAS in solution at pH 6.8. Because
of the nature of the measurement, samples could not be characterized
in liquid. Following polymer adsorption, the surface was dried with
nitrogen resulting in agglomeration of HPMCAS molecules on the surface,
as revealed by the large aggregates in the topographical image (Figure 7). Therefore, it should be noted that AFM-IR experiments
were completed for the purpose of chemical characterization only,
not to gain any conformational information. The corresponding color-coded
spectra in Figure 7 reveal that the large agglomerates
on top of the smooth drug layer exhibit an absorbance peak at 1720
cm–1 (green and black) which arises from the carbonyl
group found in HPMCAS, confirming that the aggregates are polymer.
In contrast, spectra taken at various positions on what is expected
to be the pure drug layer (blue and red) do not have a peak at 1720
cm–1 but do exhibit four absorbance peaks from 1650
to 1700 cm–1, which arise from felodipine functional
groups. The spectra taken on the HPMCAS agglomerates also show absorption
bands from 1650 to 1700 cm–1, characteristic of
felodipine. The presence and reduced height of these peaks can be
attributed to the fact that the IR laser must pass through the drug
layer underneath adsorbed HPMCAS. Thus, at these locations, the sample
exhibited absorbance at the characteristic drug frequencies in addition
to the characteristic polymer frequency. However, the presence of
adsorbed HPMCAS considerably dampened the signal arising from the
drug that reached the AFM tip.
Figure 7
AFM-IR spectra from 1620 to 1800 cm–1 of felodipine
(red and blue) and HPMCAS adsorbed to felodipine (green and black)
and their corresponding locations on the AFM height image.
AFM-IR spectra from 1620 to 1800 cm–1 of felodipine
(red and blue) and HPMCAS adsorbed to felodipine (green and black)
and their corresponding locations on the AFM height image.Figure 8 shows the chemical
images captured
as the sample was selectively illuminated at 1700 and 1720 cm–1, wavenumbers characteristic of felodipine and HPMCAS,
respectively. Pure felodipine was characterized prior to HPMCAS adsorption
(Figure 8a). Illumination at 1700 cm–1 reveals a uniform absorbance at this wavelength, as expected for
a chemically homogeneous surface. The sample was illuminated again
at 1700 cm–1 after exposure to HPMCAS. The result
(Figure 8b) now reveals dampened absorptivity
(purple) when the AFM tip encountered a polymer agglomerate. This
same area was irradiated at 1720 cm–1 (Figure 8c), and it is immediately clear that the resulting
image is the inverse of that shown in Figure 8b. There was strong absorptivity (orange) when the tip encountered
a polymer agglomerate and little absorptivity at this wavenumber on
the drug crystal surface. The absence of signal from some of the smaller
HPMCAS features in Figure 8c is due to the
lesser thickness of these small agglomerates compared to the drug
layer. Since the IR laser passes through both layers, the signal that
reaches the AFM tip is dominated by the thicker drug layer.
Figure 8
5 μm
× 5 μm AFM-IR chemical images of (a) pure
felodipine illuminated at 1700 cm–1 and felodipine
after exposure to HPMCAS illuminated at (b) 1700 cm–1 and (c) 1720 cm–1.
5 μm
× 5 μm AFM-IR chemical images of (a) pure
felodipine illuminated at 1700 cm–1 and felodipine
after exposure to HPMCAS illuminated at (b) 1700 cm–1 and (c) 1720 cm–1.These results provide clear evidence that HPMCAS adsorbs
to felodipine
under the conditions specified in the current study. After exposure
to HPMCAS, agglomerates were present on the felodipine surface, whereby
submicron chemical imaging confirmed the chemical identity of the
agglomerates.
Conclusions
When
the moderately hydrophobic carboxylated cellulosepolymer,
HPMCAS, was not ionized in aqueous solution, it was found to adsorb
onto the surface of crystalline felodipine in the form of compact
coils resulting in distinct polymer globules with poor total surface
coverage. In contrast, when ionized, HPMCAS chains extended, presumably
due to charge repulsion between molecules, a more uniform surface
coverage resulted. In concert, it was noted that the inhibitory effect
of HPMCAS on the solution crystal growth of felodipine was considerably
diminished at a low pH when the polymer is not ionized relative to
at a higher pH when the polymer is ionized. Thus, it is apparent that
the reduced inhibitory impact of the polymer on crystal growth at
low pH arises from the globule formation which leaves many growth
sites available on the crystal; in contrast, more growth sites are
blocked when the polymer is more evenly distributed on the surface
as a consequence of repulsive interactions and the growth rate is
more effectively reduced. The insights gained from this study with
felodipine and HPMCAS can be applied to other drug–polymer
systems and can be used to identify polymers which both adsorb to
the crystal surface and provide a high degree of surface coverage.
This will ultimately improve the delivery of poorly water-soluble
therapeutics, which rely on the creation of supersaturated solutions
to drive passive absorption across the gastrointestinal tract membrane.
Authors: Alex N Kulak; Peter Iddon; Yuting Li; Steven P Armes; Helmut Cölfen; Oskar Paris; Rory M Wilson; Fiona C Meldrum Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2007-03-03 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Ping Gao; Michael E Guyton; Tiehua Huang; Juliane M Bauer; Kevin J Stefanski; Qun Lu Journal: Drug Dev Ind Pharm Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Gideon Bollag; Peter Hirth; James Tsai; Jiazhong Zhang; Prabha N Ibrahim; Hanna Cho; Wayne Spevak; Chao Zhang; Ying Zhang; Gaston Habets; Elizabeth A Burton; Bernice Wong; Garson Tsang; Brian L West; Ben Powell; Rafe Shellooe; Adhirai Marimuthu; Hoa Nguyen; Kam Y J Zhang; Dean R Artis; Joseph Schlessinger; Fei Su; Brian Higgins; Raman Iyer; Kurt D'Andrea; Astrid Koehler; Michael Stumm; Paul S Lin; Richard J Lee; Joseph Grippo; Igor Puzanov; Kevin B Kim; Antoni Ribas; Grant A McArthur; Jeffrey A Sosman; Paul B Chapman; Keith T Flaherty; Xiaowei Xu; Katherine L Nathanson; Keith Nolop Journal: Nature Date: 2010-09-30 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Arvind Sharma; Kanika Arora; Harapriya Mohapatra; Rakesh K Sindhu; Madalin Bulzan; Simona Cavalu; Gulsheen Paneshar; Hosam O Elansary; Ahmed M El-Sabrout; Eman A Mahmoud; Abdullah Alaklabi Journal: Molecules Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 4.927
Authors: Venecia R Wilson; Xiaochun Lou; Donald J Osterling; DeAnne F Stolarik; Gary J Jenkins; Brittany L B Nichols; Yifan Dong; Kevin J Edgar; Geoff G Z Zhang; Lynne S Taylor Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 4.379