| Literature DB >> 27471671 |
Tingting Peng1, Shiqi Lin1, Boyi Niu1, Xinyi Wang1, Ying Huang1, Xuejuan Zhang1, Ge Li2, Xin Pan1, Chuanbin Wu3.
Abstract
Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) offer distinct advantages as a means of pulmonary drug delivery and have attracted much attention in the field of pharmaceutical science. DPIs commonly contain micronized drug particles which, because of their cohesiveness and strong propensity to aggregate, have poor aerosolization performance. Thus carriers with a larger particle size are added to address this problem. However, the performance of DPIs is profoundly influenced by the physical properties of the carrier, particularly their particle size, morphology/shape and surface roughness. Because these factors are interdependent, it is difficult to completely understand how they individually influence DPI performance. The purpose of this review is to summarize and illuminate how these factors affect drug-carrier interaction and influence the performance of DPIs.Entities:
Keywords: API, active pharmaceutical ingredient; CLF, coarse lactose fines; Carrier; DPI, dry powder inhaler; Dry powder inhaler; ED, emission dose; ER, elongation ratio; FLF, fine lactose fines; FPF, fine particle fraction; FR, flatness ratio; Fshape, shape factor; Fsurface, surface factor; MFV, minimum fluidization velocity; Morphology; PDD, pulmonary drug delivery; Particle size; Performance; RO, roundness; Surface roughness; dae, aerodynamic diameter; pMDI, pressurized metered-dose inhaler
Year: 2016 PMID: 27471671 PMCID: PMC4951591 DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2016.03.011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Pharm Sin B ISSN: 2211-3835 Impact factor: 11.413
Figure 1Two methods of combining drug and carrier for use in dry powder inhalers.
Figure 2Physical interparticulate forces between the drug and carrier.
Figure 3Mechanisms of aerosol generation and deposition of drug in the airways for a dry powder inhaler.
Figure 4Concurrent changes of powder fluidization and aerosolization as a function of particle size (↑ increase, ↓ decrease).
Figure 5Theories and hypothesis describing the effect of fine carrier particles on the aerosolization performance of a dry powder inhaler: (A) “Active sites theory”; (B) “agglomeration theory”; (C) “fluidization theory” and (D) “buffer hypothesis” (modified from Refs. 47 and 48.
Figure 6Scanning electron microscopy images of (A) large CL, (B) small CL, (C) large PL, (D) small PL, (E) large NL, and (F) small NL carrier particles (reproduced from Ref. 65 with permission).
Shape descriptors and characterization methods to evaluate particle shape or morphology.
| Shape descriptor | Order rank | Equation | Determination method | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elongation ratio (ER) | First | Optical microscopy or scanning electron microscopy (SEM) | ||
| Flatness ratio (FR) | First | Optical microscopy | ||
| Roundness (RO) | — | Optical microscopy | ||
| Shape factor ( | Second | Optical microscopy | ||
| Angularity | Second | Optical microscopy | ||
| Surface factor ( | Third | Optical microscopy |
A, the estimated area of the particle;
Angularity, a parameter to quantify particle shape;
L, length, the maximum Feret diameter;
p, Perimeter, the estimated perimeter of particle with compensation for corners;
Pconvex, perimeter of the minimum convex boundary circumscribing the particle;
Pelipse, perimeter of fictitious equivalent ellipse which has the same area and the aspect ratio of aggregate particle;
w, width, the minimum Feret diameter;
—, there has been no rank order designated for RO.
Figure7Carrier particles with three different sizes of surface roughness; (A) micrometer topography, (B) smooth, and (C) nanometer topography (modified from Ref. 78).
Characterization methods to determine surface roughness of carrier particles.
| Characterization method | Equation | Result | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct method | Atomic force microscopy (AFM) | No significance between the surface roughness of composite carriers and regular carriers was observed due to the increased variability in sample morphology of the regular carrier. | ||
| Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) | Particles produced at large scale exhibited changes not only in surface roughness but also in shape at varying outlet temperatures. A decrease in surface roughness led to a lower FPF. | |||
| Confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) | — | The obtained roughness profiles were consistent with results of SEM image analysis and showed distinct trends. In general, rough particles obtained at low outlet temperatures were spherical, whereas higher drying temperatures resulted in particles with multiple surface indentations and smoother surface. Different roughness was a result of underlying crystallization processes. | ||
| Particle image analysis | All crystallized particles had rougher surfaces than the commercial lactose, leading to improved drug aerosolization performance due to lower drug–carrier adhesion forces. | |||
| Indirect method | Colloid probe microscopy | — | Median force ( | |
| Air depression sieving | — | It was considered as a simple method to evaluate drug–carrier adhesion force, based on the aspiration principle that the whole blend used in DPI was taken into account. The detailed procedure was presented by Le et al. | ||
ConvexPerim, circumscribed particle perimeter;
l, length;
N, the number of data points in a topographical profile;
Perimeter, estimated particle perimeter;
Ra, the mean Ra values of several line profiles over the analyzed surface;
RRMS, surface root mean square roughness;
yi, the distance of asperities (i) from the center line;
Z, the deviation of all points from a plane fit to the test surface over sampling length l;
—, no equation was reported for the method.