| Literature DB >> 34959328 |
Zitong Shao1, Waiting Tai2, Yingshan Qiu1, Rico C H Man1, Qiuying Liao1, Michael Y T Chow2, Philip C L Kwok2, Jenny K W Lam1,3.
Abstract
Multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is a huge public health problem. The treatment regimen of MDR-TB requires prolonged chemotherapy with multiple drugs including second-line anti-TB agents associated with severe adverse effects. Capreomycin, a polypeptide antibiotic, is the first choice of second-line anti-TB drugs in MDR-TB therapy. It requires repeated intramuscular or intravenous administration five times per week. Pulmonary drug delivery is non-invasive with the advantages of local targeting and reduced risk of systemic toxicity. In this study, inhaled dry powder formulation of capreomycin targeting the lung was developed using spray drying technique. Among the 16 formulations designed, the one containing 25% capreomycin (w/w) and spray-dried at an inlet temperature of 90 °C showed the best overall performance with the mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) of 3.38 μm and a fine particle fraction (FPF) of around 65%. In the pharmacokinetic study in mice, drug concentration in the lungs was approximately 8-fold higher than the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) (1.25 to 2.5 µg/mL) for at least 24 h following intratracheal administration (20 mg/kg). Compared to intravenous injection, inhaled capreomycin showed significantly higher area under the curve, slower clearance and longer mean residence time in both the lungs and plasma.Entities:
Keywords: capreomycin; dry powder aerosol; inhalation; pulmonary delivery; spray drying; tuberculosis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34959328 PMCID: PMC8706516 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13122044
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
The composition of spray-dried powders prepared at different inlet temperature.
| Sample Name | Capreomycin: Mannitol Ratio ( | Capreomycin Percentage by Mass | Inlet Temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|
| C20_T60 | 1:4 | 20.0 | 60 |
| C20_T90 | 90 | ||
| C20_T120 | 120 | ||
| C20_T150 | 150 | ||
| C25_T60 | 1:3 | 25.0 | 60 |
| C25_T90 | 90 | ||
| C25_T120 | 120 | ||
| C25_T150 | 150 | ||
| C33_T60 | 1:2 | 33.3 | 60 |
| C33_T90 | 90 | ||
| C33_T120 | 120 | ||
| C33_T150 | 150 | ||
| C50_T60 | 1:1 | 50.0 | 60 |
| C50_T90 | 90 | ||
| C50_T120 | 120 | ||
| C50_T150 | 150 |
The outlet temperature, production yield, drug content and residual moisture of spray-dried powders. Data for drug content was presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). N.A. Not applicable. Due to the low production yield of C50 group, the spray-dried powders of this group were not further investigated.
| Sample Name | Outlet Temperature (°C) | Production Yield (%, | Drug Content (%, | Residual Moisture (%, |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C20_T60 | 36–38 | 53.0 | 19.2 ± 0.4 | 2.2 |
| C20_T90 | 52–55 | 69.9 | 18.7 ± 1.4 | 1.2 |
| C20_T120 | 70–74 | 66.9 | 19.8 ± 0.3 | 1.6 |
| C20_T150 | 90–95 | 63.3 | 19.0 ± 0.6 | 1.4 |
| C25_T60 | 35–39 | 47.3 | 25.5 ± 0.3 | 2.3 |
| C25_T90 | 52–56 | 65.7 | 24.9 ± 0.6 | 0.7 |
| C25_T120 | 68–71 | 78.1 | 26.7 ± 0.4 | 1.5 |
| C25_T150 | 83–86 | 63.9 | 24.5 ± 0.8 | 0.5 |
| C33_T60 | 34–37 | 18.2 | 33.2 ± 0.6 | 3.1 |
| C33_T90 | 53–56 | 25.8 | 33.6 ± 0.4 | 2.8 |
| C33_T120 | 68–70 | 52.5 | 34.4 ± 0.8 | 2.0 |
| C33_T150 | 88–92 | 39.1 | 34.1 ± 0.2 | 2.8 |
| C50_T60 | 34–37 | 1.0 | N.A. | N.A. |
| C50_T90 | 52–57 | 6.9 | N.A. | N.A. |
| C50_T120 | 66–68 | 4.3 | N.A. | N.A. |
| C50_T150 | 84–87 | 7.2 | N.A. | N.A. |
Figure 1The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of spray-dried powder imaged at ×10,000 magnification, scale bar = 5 μm.
Particle size distribution of spray-dried powders. The volumetric diameter was obtained from laser diffraction measurement (Flow rate: 60 L/min, inhaler: Breezhaler, capsule: gelatin). The median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) and geometric standard deviation (GSD) was obtained from aerosol performance analysis (Next generation impactor, flow rate: 90 L/min, duration time: 2.7 s, inhaler: Breezhaler, capsule: gelatin). Data for volumetric diameter and aerodynamic size was presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).
| Sample | Volumetric Diameter | Aerodynamic Diameter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D10 (μm) | D50 (μm) | D90 (μm) | Span Value | MMAD (μm) | GSD | |
| C20_T60 | 1.21 ± 0.02 | 2.67 ± 0.02 | 5.20 ± 0.14 | 1.49 ± 0.03 | 4.29 ± 0.77 | 3.09 ± 0.14 |
| C20_T90 | 1.20 ± 0.02 | 2.52 ± 0.00 | 4.59 ± 0.10 | 1.35 ± 0.05 | 4.28 ± 0.85 | 3.30 ± 0.28 |
| C20_T120 | 0.76 ± 0.03 | 1.82 ± 0.06 | 3.47 ± 0.04 | 1.49 ± 0.07 | 4.58 ± 0.37 | 3.89 ± 0.33 |
| C20_T150 | 1.66 ± 0.04 | 5.36 ± 0.17 | 10.67 ± 0.44 | 1.68 ± 0.03 | 9.85 ± 1.15 | 4.02 ± 0.63 |
| C25_T60 | 1.32 ± 0.08 | 3.07 ± 0.09 | 6.51 ± 0.37 | 1.69 ± 0.07 | 4.46 ± 0.21 | 2.45 ± 0.25 |
| C25_T90 | 1.16 ± 0.01 | 2.62 ± 0.05 | 5.06 ± 0.16 | 1.49 ± 0.03 | 3.38 ± 0.22 | 2.83 ± 0.14 |
| C25_T120 | 0.97 ± 0.03 | 2.44 ± 0.04 | 4.80 ± 0.06 | 1.57 ± 0.03 | 4.28 ± 0.36 | 2.70 ± 0.25 |
| C25_T150 | 1.28 ± 0.04 | 5.16 ± 0.14 | 11.73 ± 0.22 | 2.03 ± 0.03 | 8.79 ± 0.38 | 2.72 ± 0.20 |
| C33_T60 | 1.57 ± 0.03 | 3.33 ± 0.02 | 6.83 ± 0.15 | 1.58 ± 0.05 | 5.29 ± 0.93 | 3.06 ± 0.06 |
| C33_T90 | 1.49 ± 0.05 | 3.16 ± 0.05 | 6.51 ± 0.24 | 1.59 ± 0.05 | 4.74 ± 1.14 | 3.08 ± 0.26 |
| C33_T120 | 1.08 ± 0.05 | 2.60 ± 0.11 | 5.17 ± 0.37 | 1.57 ± 0.07 | 4.32 ± 0.34 | 2.35 ± 0.31 |
| C33_T150 | 2.16 ± 0.21 | 6.44 ± 0.54 | 15.74 ± 2.83 | 2.10 ± 0.25 | 16.59 ± 2.66 | 3.87 ± 0.31 |
Figure 2In vitro aerosol performance of spray-dried powders evaluated by the Next Generation Impactor (NGI). Data presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). p-value indicated comparison of FPF between formulations with the same drug content (* and ** represents p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test).
Figure 3Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) thermogram of spray-dried powders, raw capreomycin and raw mannitol. Negative peak represents endothermic events.
Figure 4X-ray powder diffraction (PXRD) diffractogram of raw capreomycin, raw mannitol (right conner) and spray-dried powders (from 5° to 30°).
Theoretical and experimental percentages by the number of atoms of elements in pure capreomycin (as sulfate) and mannitol.
| Element | Raw Capreomycin (as Sulfate) | Raw Mannitol | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theoretical | Experimental | Theoretical | Experimental | |
| Carbon | 47.1 | 57.2 ± 0.2 | 50.0 | 52.7 ± 0.2 |
| Oxygen | 23.5 | 19.0 ± 0.1 | 50.0 | 47.3 ± 0.2 |
| Nitrogen | 27.5 | 21.7 ± 0.1 | - | - |
| Sulphur | 2.0 | 2.1 ± 0.0 | - | - |
Figure 5Surface percentage of capreomycin in different spray-dried powders.
Figure 6Pharmacokinetic study of spray-dried powder formulation of capreomycin on mice. The mice in intratracheal (IT) group were administered with capreomycin spray-dried powders (C25_T90 formulation) intratracheally with a dosage range of 17.5–22.5 mg/kg (the average delivered dose was 20.54 ± 1.31 mg/kg). The mice in intravenous (IV) group were administered with capreomycin solution intravenously at a dose of 20 mg/kg. Data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. (n = 5 for each time point).
Pharmacokinetic parameters obtained by noncompartmental analysis after administration of capreomycin by pulmonary or intravenous route. The mice in intratracheal (IT) group were administered with capreomycin spray-dried powders (C25_T90 formulation) intratracheally with a dosage range of 17.5–22.5 mg/kg. The mice in intravenous (IV) group were administered with capreomycin solution intravenously at a dose of 20 mg/kg. Data was presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5).
| Parameters a | Plasma | Lung | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IT Group | IV Group | IT Group | IV Group | |
| 1.15 ± 0.57 | 2.74 ± 1.67 | 0.07 ± 0.04 *** | 2.37 ± 0.23 b | |
| 0.73 ± 0.33 | 0.34 ± 0.20 | 18.94 ± 20.67 | 0.29 ± 0.03 b | |
| CL (mL/h·kg) | 321.88 ± 81.65 *** | 612.91 ± 93.46 | 12.99 ± 3.66 *** | 2624.71 ± 157.19 b |
| AUC0–t (µg·h/mL) | 65.10 ± 16.37 ** | 32.55 ± 5.52 | 1061.88 ± 235.76 *** | 6.71 ± 0.51 |
| AUC0–∞ (µg·h/mL) | 67.26 ± 16.92 ** | 33.78 ± 5.54 | 1726.37 ± 658.83 ** | 7.78 ± 0.46 b |
| MRT (h) | 0.79 ± 0.22 ** | 0.30 ± 0.11 | 6.62 ± 1.25 *** | 0.23 ± 0.13 |
| 80.08 ± 18.84 | 74.89 ± 10.94 | 739.13 ± 180.66 *** | 18.23 ± 8.34 | |
| 0.15 ± 0.09 | 0.08 ± 0 | 0.27 ± 0.20 | 0.12 ± 0.07 | |
aK, elimination rate constant; t1/2, half-life; CL, clearance; AUC0–t, area under the curve from 0 h to t; AUC0–∞, area under the curve from 0 h to infinity; MRT, mean residence time; C, maximum concentration; T, time at which C occurs. b In the lungs of mice in the IV group, the drug concentration fell below the detection limit quickly. Each mouse was allocated to one of the five groups in each time point according to their body weight. Two of the five mice showed drug concentration below the detection limit at 30 min post-administration, hence two sets of data did not have enough points to fit the linear model for the calculation of the predicted parameters by WinNonlin. Only three sets of data were presented. c The unit of C in the plasma was µg/mL and the unit of C in the lung tissue was µg/g. ** or *** Significant difference between IT group and IV group (p < 0.01 or p < 0.001, Student’s t-test).