| Literature DB >> 32722099 |
Bence Sipos1, Piroska Szabó-Révész1, Ildikó Csóka1, Edina Pallagi1, Dorina Gabriella Dobó1, Péter Bélteky2, Zoltán Kónya2, Ágota Deák3, László Janovák3, Gábor Katona1.
Abstract
Our study aimed to develop an "ex tempore" reconstitutable, viscosity enhancer- and preservative-free meloxicam (Entities:
Keywords: NSAID; freeze-drying; nanoDDS; nose-to-brain delivery; polymeric micelle; prediction of IVIVC; preformulation study; quality by design; reconstituted nasal formulation; solubility enhancement
Year: 2020 PMID: 32722099 PMCID: PMC7464185 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12080697
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Elements of the quality target product profile (QTPP), their targets and justification.
| QTPP Element | Target | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Indication | Neuroinflammation | NDs, such as Alzheimer’s Disease and Multiple Sclerosis usually pairs with inflammation in the CNS resulting in decreasing quality of life (QoL) |
| Target patients | Adult (>18 years) | The listed NDs usually concern adult, mostly elderly patients. |
| Administration route | Nasal | The API can directly reach the CNS bypassing the first-pass effect via “nose-to-brain” route [ |
| Site of activity | CNS | COX enzymes play a large role locally in the CNS mediating neuroinflammation [ |
| Absorption feature | Rapid uptake by the nasal mucosa | This QTPP is closely related to dissolution and permeability, which two main factors must be fitted to the requirements of the nasal administration route. With high absorption in a short period of time a rapid onset of action can be achieved which feature can be utilized as a reliever for neuroinflammation besides sustaining therapy. |
| Dissolution profile | Immediate drug-release | The duration of stay is around 10–15 min due to mucociliary clearance therefore it is crucial to efficacy. |
| Nanocarrier | Polymeric micelles with particle size between 80 and 120 nm with monodisperse distribution | The proper particle characteristics are a critical parameter in absorption from the nasal mucosa exploiting the “nose-to-brain” pathway. Furthermore, increase in specific surface area and decrease in size contributes to higher water solubility, leading to faster dissolution. |
Composition and responses of the Box–Behnken factorial design.
| Standard Run. | Independent Variables | Z-Average * (nm) | PdI * | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soluplus® (mg/mL) | Ethanol (mL) | 1-M NaOH (mL) | |||
| 1 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 194.5 ± 1.8 | 0.411 ± 0.02 |
| 2 | 12.0 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 188.0 ± 3.9 | 0.299 ± 0.09 |
| 3 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 4.5 | 94.87 ± 1.1 | 0.155 ± 0.02 |
| 4 | 12.0 | 10.0 | 4.5 | 270.1 ± 2.0 | 0.513 ± 0.07 |
| 5 | 6.0 | 7.5 | 3.0 | 105.6 ± 0.9 | 0.164 ± 0.01 |
| 6 | 12.0 | 7.5 | 3.0 | 170.4 ± 5.6 | 0.477 ± 0.04 |
| 7 | 6.0 | 7.5 | 6.0 | 116.2 ± 1.5 | 0.140 ± 0.03 |
| 8 | 12.0 | 7.5 | 6.0 | 200.12 ± 7.3 | 0.344 ± 0.11 |
| 9 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 195.0 ± 2.3 | 0.377 ± 0.05 |
| 10 | 9.0 | 10.0 | 3.0 | 111.6 ± 3.0 | 0.114 ± 0.06 |
| 11 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 65.4 ± 1.6 | 0.401 ± 0.17 |
| 12 | 9.0 | 10.0 | 6.0 | 99.5 ± 1.7 | 0.444 ± 0.06 |
| 13 | 9.0 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 99.86 ± 0.5 | 0.134 ± 0.04 |
| 14 | 9.0 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 100.12 ± 0.7 | 0.155 ± 0.08 |
| 15 | 9.0 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 107.7 ± 3.1 | 0.163 ± 0.05 |
* Data are means ± SD (n = 3 independent formulations).
Figure 1Ishikawa—or cause and effect diagram—of the influencing parameters of meloxicam (MEL)-containing polymeric micelles for intranasal use. Abbreviations not mentioned before: HLB—hydrophile–lipophile balance; GI—gastrointestinal; MCC—mucociliary clearance.
Figure 2Risk assessment of the MEL-loaded polymeric micelles. (A,B) Interdependence ratings between (A) CQAs and QTTPs and CQAs and (B) CPPs with the calculated severity scores of CQAs and CPPs in decreasing order of risks. Abbreviations: QTPP—quality target product profile; CQA—critical quality attributes; CPP—critical process parameters; L—low; M—medium; H—high.
Figure 3Two-dimensional surface plots of the effect of independent variables in the Box–Behnken factorial design.
Figure 4(A–C) TEM images of optimized freeze-dried MEL-loaded polymeric micelles and (D) particle size distribution.
Solubility, encapsulation efficiency and calculated parameters of drug-loaded polymeric micelles.
| pH | Sw (mg/L) | Stot (mg/L) | χ | P | PM | ΔGs0 (kJ/mol) | EE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.6 | 6.92 ± 0.19 | 5419.7 ± 1.284 | 0.54 | 782.20 | 77.68 | −10.983 | 89.4 |
| 7.03 | 6.99 ± 0.45 | 5527.0 ± 1.197 | 0.55 | 789.70 | 78.34 | −10.813 | 92.1 |
| 7.4 | 7.09 ± 0.33 | 5775.9 ± 0.798 | 0.57 | 825.45 | 81.98 | −11.363 | 89.9 |
Wetting properties of components and polymeric micelles.
| Samples. | Θwater (°) | Θdiiodomethane (°) | γd (mN m−1) | γp (mN m−1) | γ (mN m−1) | Polarity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEL | 74.1 ± 5.2 | 15.9 ± 3.3 | 44.7 | 9.77 | 54.47 | 17.9 |
| Soluplus® | 33.4 ± 0.3 | 16.4 ± 0.0 | 44.02 | 29.20 | 73.22 | 39.6 |
| Physical mixture | 34.3 ± 1.7 | 19.2 ± 2.1 | 43.34 | 29.00 | 72.34 | 40.0 |
| Polymeric micelle | 11.3 ± 0.5 | 23.4 ± 0.1 | 42.08 | 37.13 | 79.21 | 47.0 |
Figure 5X-ray powder diffractograms of the components and the formulation.
Figure 6Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) curves of the components and the formulation.
Thermal behavior of components and the formulation.
| Material | Starting Point of Weight Loss (°C) | Maximal Weight Loss at 275 °C (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Meloxicam | 257 | 2.92 |
| Soluplus® | 241 | 5.33 |
| Physical mixture | 185 | 7.14 |
| Polymeric micelle | 103 | 4.98 |
Figure 7FT-IR spectra of the enlarged regions indicating the secondary interactions.
Figure 8(A) Raman spectra of the materials and the (B) enlarged region of structural change.
Figure 9Intensity changes in Raman chemical maps indicating the (A) shifting at 1305 nm of physical mixture and (B) polymeric micelle; color intensity: blue—extinction of peak at 1305 nm, red—existence of peaks at 1305 nm.
Results of DLS measurements after 12 months of physical-stability examination.
| Sampling (Month) | Z-Average * (nm) | PdI * |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100.47 ± 0.87 | 0.149 ± 0.01 |
| 1 | 100.79 ± 0.51 | 0.151 ± 0.04 |
| 2 | 100.88 ± 0.82 | 0.152 ± 0.02 |
| 3 | 100.85 ± 1.03 | 0.152 ± 0.03 |
| 4 | 101.05 ± 0.41 | 0.153 ± 0.05 |
| 5 | 101.11 ± 0.93 | 0.155 ± 0.01 |
| 6 | 101.19 ± 0.48 | 0.154 ± 0.04 |
| 7 | 101.22 ± 0.21 | 0.154 ± 0.06 |
| 8 | 101.79 ± 0.81 | 0.156 ± 0.07 |
| 9 | 101.76 ± 1.15 | 0.160 ± 0.04 |
| 10 | 101.94 ± 0.77 | 0.161 ± 0.03 |
| 11 | 102.56 ± 0.42 | 0.163 ± 0.08 |
| 12 | 103.78 ± 0.36 | 0.165 ± 0.04 |
| absolute change | +3.31 | +0.016 |
* Data are means ± SD (n = 3 independent formulations).
Concentration of residual organic solvent in the optimized formulation.
| Ethanol (mM) | Ethanol (ppm) | Maximum Residual Level * (ppm) |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0022 ± 0.0001 | 0.101345 ± 0.0046 | 5000 |
* based on the ICH Q3C (R5).
Physicochemical parameters of the nasal formulation.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Reconstitution time (s) | 2 |
| pH | 6.49 |
| Z-average (nm) | 100.47 ± 0.87 |
| PdI | 0.149 ± 0.01 |
| Zeta potential (mV) | −26.7 ± 0.6 |
| Osmolality (mOsmol/L) | 240 |
| Viscosity (35 °C) (mPas) | 32.5 ± 0.28 |
Figure 10In vitro release study of crystalline MEL and the optimized formulation in triplicate; data are means ± SD (n = 3 independent formulations)
Statistical analysis of the in vitro dissolution test.
| Samples | %DE10 min. | %DE15 min. | %DE30 min. | %DE60 min. | RD15 min. | MDT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEL | 2.96 | 3.53 | 4.52 | 5.52 | 1.00 | 11.50 |
| Pol_mic1 | 72.33 | 78.74 | 86.28 | 91.44 | 22.23 | 3.44 |
| Pol_mic2 | 73.05 | 79.03 | 87.52 | 93.08 | 22,39 | 3.76 |
| Pol_mic3 | 73.20 | 79.63 | 87.22 | 91.96 | 22.56 | 3.58 |
| Average (formulations) | 72.86 | 79.04 | 87.01 | 92.16 | 22.39 | 3.59 |
| SD (formulations) | 0.465 | 0.454 | 0.647 | 0.838 | 0.118 | 0.160 |
Figure 11In vitro permeability study of MEL-loaded polymeric micelles in triplicate compared to crystalline MEL; data are means ± SD (n = 3 independent formulations).
Results of in vitro permeability study. Flux (J); permeability coefficient (Kp) and relative permeability at 15 min (RP15 min) values of MEL-loaded polymeric micelles compared to crystalline MEL.
| Samples | J (µg/cm2/h) | Kp (cm/h) | RP15 min |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crystalline MEL | 7.67 | 0.005752 | 1.00 |
| Pol_mic1 | 127.33 | 0.095550 | 5.35 |
| Pol_mic2 | 110.32 | 0.082746 | 4.56 |
| Pol_mic3 | 127.02 | 0.095277 | 5.80 |
| Average (formulations) | 121.56 | 0.091191 | 5.24 |
| SD (formulations) | 9.73 | 0.007315 | 0.63 |
Figure 12Figures of the IVIVC evaluation. (A) Calculated AUC0–60 min values from the in vitro dissolution test; (B) Calculated AUC0–60 min values from the in vitro diffusion test; (C) AUC0–60 min values from the in vivo results with the predicted polymeric micelle value (marked as green); (D) Pearson correlation based on dissolution; (E) Pearson correlation based on diffusion. Statistics: * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; ns = not significant.