| Literature DB >> 27012901 |
Stefania Marano1, Susan Anne Barker2, Bahijja Tolulope Raimi-Abraham3, Shahrzad Missaghi4, Ali Rajabi-Siahboomi5, Duncan Q M Craig6.
Abstract
Solid dispersion technology represents a successful approach to addressing the bioavailability issues caused by the low aqueous solubility of many Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) Class II drugs. In this study, the use of high-yield manufacture of fiber-based dispersion is explored as an alternative approach to monolith production methods. A temperature-controlled solvent-free centrifugal spinning process was used to produce sucrose-based microfibers containing the poorly water-soluble drugs olanzapine and piroxicam (both BCS Class II); these were successfully incorporated into the microfibers and the basic characteristics of fiber diameter, glassy behavior, drug loading capacity and drug-sucrose interaction assessment were measured. Scanning electron microscopy revealed that bead-free drug-loaded microfibers with homogenous morphology and diameter in the range of a few micrometers were prepared using our process. Differential scanning calorimetric and X-ray diffraction analyses showed that both drug and carrier were present in the amorphous state in the microfibers, although in the case of piroxicam-loaded microfibers, the presence of small amounts of crystalline drug was observed under polarized light microscopy and in Fourier transform infrared spectra. Drug dissolution performance was evaluated under both sink and non-sink conditions and was found to be significantly enhanced compared to the corresponding crystalline physical mixtures and pure drugs, with evidence of supersaturation behavior noted under non-sink conditions. This study has demonstrated that microfiber-based dispersions may be manufactured by the centrifugal spinning process and may possess characteristics that are favorable for the enhanced dissolution and oral absorption of drugs.Entities:
Keywords: Amorphous solid dispersion; Centrifugal spinning; Dissolution enhancement; Microfiber; Poorly water soluble drug; Sucrose; Supersaturation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27012901 PMCID: PMC4866555 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2016.03.021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Pharm Biopharm ISSN: 0939-6411 Impact factor: 5.571
Summarized technological aspects of the most common methods of solid dispersion preparation compared to the electrospinning and centrifugal spinning processes.
| Method | Production rate (lab-scale) | Material choice | Method used | Disadvantage | Application | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centrifugal spinning | 300 g to 6 kg/h | Broad | Melting/solvent evaporation | Broad range of fiber diameter | Fiber glass production, oral thin films, tissue engineering scaffolds | |
| Electro-spinning | 0.2–450 g/h | Broad but dependent on intrinsic properties of polymer fluid | Mainly solvent evaporation, melting | Low production rate, applied high voltage, jet stability | Filtration, tissue engineering, protective clothing, energy storage, manufacture of solid dispersions | |
| Hot melt extrusion | 100 g to 2 kg/h | Broad but dependent on thermoplastic properties of polymers | Melting | Not suitable for thermally labile drugs | Rubber/plastic fabrication, pelletized feeds, implants, injection molding manufacture of solid dispersions | |
| Spray drying | Lower that hot melt extrusion | Soluble in the solvent of choice | Solvent evaporation | Potential solvent residue | Pharmaceutical materials processing, food industry, paint pigments, ceramic materials, catalyst supports, manufacture of solid dispersions | |
| Freeze drying | Lower than hot melt extrusion and spray drying | Soluble in the solvent of choice | Solvent evaporation | Potential solvent residue, time consuming | Food industry, treatment of heat sensitive materials manufacture of solid dispersions | |
Fig. 1Schematic image of the centrifugal spinning device including dimensional measurements.
Fig. 2Schematic representation of the centrifugal spinning apparatus and individual process steps in the preparation of drug-loaded microfibers.
Experimental thermal properties of raw materials measured by DSC and TGA and corresponding process temperatures used for the preparation of microfibers.
| Material | Melting temperature (°C) ± SD | Degradation temperature (°C) ± SD | Water content (%) | Process temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLZ | 196 ± 0.4 | 269.7 ± 3.0 | 0.4 ± 0.12 | – |
| PRX | 203 ± 0.2 | 251.7 ± 2.0 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | – |
| Sucrose | 191 ± 0.5 | 230.2 ± 4.1 | 0.72 ± 0.2 | 197 |
| OLZ–sucrose PM | S: 190 ± 0.2 | 234.05 ± 1.0 | 0.14 ± 0.08 | 200 |
| PRX–sucrose PM | S: 187.1 ± 0.4 | 232.02 ± 3.2 | 0.1 ± 0.07 | 205 |
Fig. 3SEM images of the surface morphology (500× magnification) and microfiber diameter frequency diagram of (a) unloaded sucrose microfibers, (b) 10% (w/w) OLZ-loaded sucrose microfibers and (c) 10% (w/w) PRX-loaded sucrose microfibers. ∗a.d. = average diameter calculated using about 100 individual diameters for each sample.
Fig. 4MTDSC total heat flow traces of raw materials: (a) sucrose, (b) OLZ and (c) PRX; and microfibers: (d) sucrose, (e) 10% (w/w) OLZ-loaded sucrose microfibers and (f) 10% (w/w) PRX-loaded sucrose microfibers with inset view showing magnification of glass transitions analyzed with reversing heat flow.
Fig. 5Microscopic images at 20× magnification of freshly prepared microfibers: (A) unloaded sucrose, (B) 10% (w/w) OLZ-loaded sucrose, (C) 10% (w/w) PRX-loaded sucrose.
ATR-FTIR absorption peak assignments for model drugs alone and in their PMs with sucrose and 10% w/w drug loaded microfibers.
| Absorption band (cm−1) | Assignment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| OLZ | OLZ–sucrose PM | OLZ–sucrose microfibers | |
| 2935 | 2936 | 2929 | C–H stretching |
| 2838 | 2838 | – | CH2 symmetric stretching |
| 1582 | 1583 | 1588 | C |
| 1556 | 1556 | 1560 | Contribution from C |
| 1142 | 1143 | – | Aromatic ring stretching |
| 1411 | 1409 | 1406 | CH3 deformation |
| 1224 | 1224 | 1218 | C–N stretching |
| PRX | PRX–sucrose PM | PRX–sucrose microfibers | |
| 3338 | 3339 | – | –OH, –NH stretching |
| 1628 | 1629 | 1630 | C |
| 1575 | 1575 | 1575 | C |
| 1525 | 1527 | 1524 | C |
| 1179 | 1180 | 1180 | Symmetric vibration of SO2 |
Fig. 6ATR-FTIR spectra in the region between 1700 and 1000 cm−1 of (a) crystalline OLZ (top), OLZ–sucrose microfibers (bottom) and (b) crystalline PRX (top) and PRX–sucrose microfibers (bottom).
Equilibrium solubility of pure OLZ and PRX in phosphate buffer (PBS) (pH: 6.8) at 37 °C in the presence and absence of increasing concentrations of sucrose (from 0.1 to 5 mg/mL) and corresponding association constants (ka).
| Added sucrose (mg/mL) | Solubility of OLZ ± SD in PBS (pH: 6.8) (mg/mL) | Solubility of PRX ± SD in PBS (pH: 6.8) (mg/mL) |
|---|---|---|
| Without sucrose | 0.069 ± 0.005 | 0.073 ± 0.0052 |
| 0.1 | 0.073 ± 0.0049 | 0.079 ± 0.0045 |
| 0.5 | 0.080 ± 0.0031 | 0.083 ± 0.0025 |
| 2 | 0.101 ± 0.0029 | 0.112 ± 0.0047 |
| 3 | 0.127 ± 0.0062 | 0.155 ± 0.0056 |
| 5 | 0.14 ± 0.0042 | 0.173 ± 0.006 |
| 68.326 ( | 101.52 ( |
Fig. 7Dissolution profiles under sink conditions of (a) OLZ–sucrose fibers compared to corresponding PM and pure drug and (b) PRX–sucrose fibers compared to corresponding PM and pure drug.
Fig. 8Dissolution profiles under non-sink conditions of (a) OLZ–sucrose microfibers compared to corresponding PM and pure drug and (b) PRX–sucrose microfibers compared to corresponding PM and pure drug.