| Literature DB >> 35056058 |
Cristina Martín-Sabroso1,2, Mario Alonso-González1, Ana Fernández-Carballido1,2, Juan Aparicio-Blanco1,2, Damián Córdoba-Díaz1,2, Federico Navarro-García3, Manuel Córdoba-Díaz1,2, Ana I Torres-Suárez1,2.
Abstract
Accumulation of cystine crystals in the cornea of patients suffering from cystinosis is considered pathognomonic and can lead to severe ocular complications. Cysteamine eye drop compounded formulations, commonly prepared by hospital pharmacy services, are meant to diminish the build-up of corneal cystine crystals. The objective of this work was to analyze whether the shelf life proposed for six formulations prepared following different protocols used in hospital pharmacies is adequate to guarantee the quality and efficacy of cysteamine eye drops. The long-term and in-use stabilities of these preparations were studied using different parameters: content of cysteamine and its main degradation product cystamine; appearance, color and odor; pH and viscosity; and microbiological analysis. The results obtained show that degradation of cysteamine was between 20% and 50% after one month of storage in the long-term stability study and between 35% and 60% in the in-use study. These data confirm that cysteamine is a very unstable molecule in aqueous solution, the presence of oxygen being the main degradation factor. Saturation with nitrogen gas of the solutions offers a means of reducing cysteamine degradation. Overall, all the formulae studied presented high instability at the end of their shelf life, suggesting that their clinical efficacy might be dramatically compromised.Entities:
Keywords: cysteamine; eye drop formulations; ocular cystinosis; stability
Year: 2021 PMID: 35056058 PMCID: PMC8779799 DOI: 10.3390/ph15010002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8247
Composition and storage specifications of the developed formulae.
| Composition Per Vial | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F I | F II | F III | F IV | F V | F VI | |
| Cysteamine (%) | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 |
| Hyaluronic Acid (%) | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | --- | --- |
| EDTA (%) | 0.01 | 0.01 | --- | --- | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| BSS (mL) q.s. | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | ||
| Physiological saline solution (mL) q.s. | --- | --- | --- | --- | 10 | 10 |
| Vial | Sterile class I 15 mL amber glass dropper bottle | |||||
| Saturation with N2 | Yes | --- | Yes | --- | --- | --- |
| Storage conditions | Refrigerator (2–8 °C) | Room temperature (25 °C) | ||||
Gradient HPLC method for quantification of cysteamine and cystamine. The mobile phase A was an aqueous sodium heptane sulfonate solution (pH 2.5) and the mobile phase B was acetonitrile.
| Time (min) | Mobile Phase A (%) | Mobile Phase B (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 80 | 20 |
| 1.0 | 80 | 20 |
| 16.0 | 35 | 65 |
| 16.1 | 10 | 90 |
| 19.0 | 10 | 90 |
| 19.5 | 80 | 20 |
| 24.0 | 80 | 20 |
Figure 1Evolution of the pH values of the different formulae during the long-term stability study.
Figure 2Evolution of the viscosity values of the formulae throughout the long-term stability study. (A) Relative viscosity (water = 1). (B) Variation in relative viscosity with respect to the initial value (%).
Figure 3(A) Percentage of remaining cysteamine during the long-term stability study. (B) Evolution of cystamine levels in the different formulae throughout the long-term stability study.
Degradation rate constants (K) obtained from the data generated in the long-term stability study. Sk: standard deviation of K; r: correlation coefficient of percentage of drug remaining vs. storage time.
| K (%/day) | Sk (%/day) | r | |
|---|---|---|---|
| FI | 0.5343 | 0.1329 | −0.7859 |
| FII | 1.5866 | 0.0811 | −0.9872 |
| FIII | 0.7328 | 0.0985 | −0.9274 |
| FIV | 1.493 | 0.1191 | −0.9696 |
| FV | 1.2095 | 0.1132 | −0.9589 |
| FVI | 1.906 | 0.2069 | −0.9458 |
Figure 4Evolution of cysteamine and cystamine levels in the six formulae studied.
Figure 5Evolution of the pH values of the different formulae throughout the in-use stability study.
Figure 6Evolution of the viscosity values of the formulae in the in-use stability study. (A) relative viscosity (water = 1). (B) Variation in relative viscosity with respect to the initial value (%).
Figure 7(A) Evolution of the percentage of cysteamine remaining in the different formulae during the in-use stability study. (B) Evolution of cystamine levels in the different formulae throughout the in-use stability study.
Degradation rate constants (K) obtained from data of the in-use stability study. Sk: standard deviation of K; r: correlation coefficient of percentage of drug remaining vs. in-use time.
| K (%/day) | Sk (%/day) | r | |
|---|---|---|---|
| FI | 5.2301 | 0.9119 | −0.9573 |
| FII | 5.3082 | 1.1188 | −0.9215 |
| FIII | 4.1976 | 1.6782 | −0.781 |
| FIV | 4.9523 | 0.899 | −0.94 |
| FV | 6.5433 | 1.7833 | −0.878 |
| FVI | 9.3489 | 1.0367 | −0.9763 |