| Literature DB >> 31428895 |
Gábor Vasvári1, Ádám Haimhoffer2, László Horváth3, István Budai4, György Trencsényi5, Monika Béresová5, Csaba Dobó-Nagy6, Judit Váradi2, Ildikó Bácskay2, Zoltán Ujhelyi2, Pálma Fehér2, Dávid Sinka2, Miklós Vecsernyés2, Ferenc Fenyvesi2.
Abstract
Dosage forms with increased gastric residence time are promising tools to increase bioavailability of drugs with narrow absorption window. Low-density floating formulations could avoid gastric emptying; therefore, sustained drug release can be achieved. Our aim was to develop a new technology to produce low-density floating formulations by melt foaming. Excipients were selected carefully, with the criteria of low gastric irritation, melting range below 70°C and well-known use in oral drug formulations. PEG 4000, Labrasol and stearic acid type 50 were used to create metronidazole dispersion which was foamed by air on atmospheric pressure using in-house developed apparatus at 53°C. Stearic acid was necessary to improve the foamability of the molten dispersion. Additionally, it reduced matrix erosion, thus prolonging drug dissolution and preserving hardness of the moulded foam. Labrasol as a liquid solubiliser can be used to increase drug release rate and drug solubility. Based on the SEM images, metronidazole in the molten foam remained in crystalline form. MicroCT scans with the electron microscopic images revealed that the foam has a closed-cell structure, where spherical voids have smooth inner wall, they are randomly dispersed, while adjacent voids often interconnected with each other. Drug release from all compositions followed Korsmeyer-Peppas kinetic model. Erosion of the matrix was the main mechanism of the release of metronidazole. Texture analysis confirmed that stearic acid plays a key role in preserving the integrity of the matrix during dissolution in acidic buffer. The technology creates low density and solid matrix system with micronsized air-filled voids.Entities:
Keywords: PEG 4000; gastric retention; lipid matrix; solid dispersion; solid foam
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31428895 PMCID: PMC6700043 DOI: 10.1208/s12249-019-1500-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AAPS PharmSciTech ISSN: 1530-9932 Impact factor: 3.246
Fig. 1In-house apparatus with a whisker-type agitator used for melting, mixing, foaming and moulding the dispersion (3.0 × 10.0 diameter, height in centimetres, the difference between the shaft and the whisker head is 8.0 cm)
Compositions and Densities of the Foamed Compositions
| Formulation | MNZ | SA | PEG 4000 | Labrasol | Density (g/cm3) ± SD before foaming | Density (g/cm3) ± SD after foaming |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | 30% | 0% | 70% | 0% | 1.28 ± 0.0072 | 1.26 ± 0.0102 |
| M2 | 30% | 0% | 68.5% | 1.5% | 1.27 ± 0.0073 | 1.14 ± 0.0195 |
| M3 | 30% | 0% | 67.5% | 2.5% | 1.22 ± 0.0284 | 1.17 ± 0.0144 |
| M4 | 30% | 5% | 63.5% | 1.5% | 1.22 ± 0.0178 | 0.89 ± 0.0341 |
| M5 | 30% | 10% | 57.5% | 2.5% | 1.26 ± 0.0098 | 0.93 ± 0.0396 |
| M6 | 30% | 5% | 65% | 0% | 1.27 ± 0.0093 | 0.82 ± 0.0261 |
| M7 | 30% | 10% | 60% | 0% | 1.29 ± 0.0083 | 0.93 ± 0.0408 |
Prior to density determination tests, randomly selected samples from the solidified and moulded compositions were tested to confirm instant floatation in pH 1.2 acidic buffer. M1, M2 and M3 compositions failed on this preliminary test, and their densities were determined to be more than 1.00 g/cm3
Data present average values and standard deviations (n = 15)
Fig. 2Viscosity temperature curve of the 30 m/m% MNZ- PEG 4000 suspension
Fig. 3Representative SEM pictures of the M4 (a), M5 (b), M6 (c) and M7 (d) solid foams. Magnifications are between × 18 and × 30. Red arrows indicate the solid particles of MNZ in the solid foams
Fig. 4a Reconstructed microCT image of the M7 composition. The upper block represents the foamed product with a section from the original images, while the lower block represents the unfoamed product with a section from the original images. b Reconstructed model of the foamed melt presenting a closed-cell structure with interconnecting voids
Fig. 5a Dissolution profiles of the floating foamed compositions. Bars represent mean ± S.D. (n = 3). b Water uptake (%) vs. time (h) curves of the floating foamed compositions. Bars represent mean ± S.D. (n = 3). c Erosion of the floating foamed compositions. Bars represent mean ± S.D. (n = 3)
Release Profile Comparison and Dissolution Efficiencies of the Floating Formulations
| Dissolution efficiencies | Pair-wise comparison of dissolution profiles | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| f1 | f2 | |||
| M4 | 11.11 | 47.28 | ||
| M4 | 15.48 | 41.06 | ||
| M4 | 88.43% | M4 | 36.88 | 25.84 |
| M5 | 79.84% | M5 | 4.92 | 67.87 |
| M6 | 76.04% | M5 | 28.99 | 33.92 |
| M7 | 57.21% | M6 | 25.32 | 38.02 |
f1 values of the difference factor calculation
f2 values of the similarity factor calculation
Model Fitting Results of the Dissolution Data
| Composition | Zero-order | First-order | Korsmeyer-Peppas |
|---|---|---|---|
| M4 | 0.7038 | 0.9875 |
|
| M5 | 0.7148 | 0.9479 |
|
| M6 | 0.7790 | 0.9836 |
|
| M7 | 0.8324 | 0.9947 |
|
All values represent determination coefficients for each model fittings. Italic numbers indicate the highest values for each composition
Fig. 6a Texture analysis result of the dry, foamed compositions at 25°C and dissolution coupled texture analysis result of the immersed samples at 37°C after 1 h (b), 3 h (c), 5 h (e), 7 h (f), 10 h (g). d Representative photos of M7 solid foams after compression by the measurement probe (from left to right: 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 h), yellow stain was added into the dissolution media to follow the water permeation into the sample