Mariana Hugo Silva1,2, Sarah P Hudson2, Lidia Tajber3, Matthieu Garin1, Wenyu Dong1, Tatsiana Khamiakova1, René Holm4,5. 1. Pharmaceutical Product Development and Supply, Janssen Research and Development, Johnson & Johnson, Beerse, Belgium. 2. Department of Chemical Sciences, SSPC the Science Foundation Ireland Research Centre for Pharmaceuticals, Bernal Institute, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Co. Limerick, Ireland. 3. School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, SSPC the Science Foundation Ireland Research Centre for Pharmaceuticals, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, College Green, Ireland. 4. Pharmaceutical Product Development and Supply, Janssen Research and Development, Johnson & Johnson, Beerse, Belgium. reho@sdu.dk. 5. Department of Physics, Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark. reho@sdu.dk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the difference in methods to determine the osmolality in solutions of stabilizers used for long-acting injectable suspensions. METHODS: The osmolality was measured by freezing point depression and vapor pressure for 11 different polymers and surfactants (PEG 3350, 4000, 6000, 8000, 20,000, PVP K12, K17 and K30, poloxamer 188, 388 and 407, HPMC E5, Na-CMC, polysorbate 20 and 80, vitamin E-TPGS, phospholipid, DOSS and SDS) in different concentrations. RESULTS: Independently of the measuring method, an increase in osmolality with increasing concentration was observed for all polymers and surfactants, as would be expected due to the physicochemical origin of the osmolality. No correlation was found between the molecular weight of the polymers and the measured osmolality. The osmolality values were different for PVPs, PEGs, and Na-CMC using the two different measurement methods. The values obtained by the freezing point depression method tended to be similar or higher than the ones provided by vapor pressure, overall showing a significant difference in the osmolality measured by the two investigated methods. CONCLUSIONS: For lower osmolality values (e.g. surfactants), the choice of the measuring method was not critical, both the freezing point depression and vapor pressure could be used. However, when the formulations contained higher concentrations of excipients and/or thermosensitive excipients, the data suggests that the vapor pressure method would be more suited.
PURPOSE: To investigate the difference in methods to determine the osmolality in solutions of stabilizers used for long-acting injectable suspensions. METHODS: The osmolality was measured by freezing point depression and vapor pressure for 11 different polymers and surfactants (PEG 3350, 4000, 6000, 8000, 20,000, PVP K12, K17 and K30, poloxamer 188, 388 and 407, HPMC E5, Na-CMC, polysorbate 20 and 80, vitamin E-TPGS, phospholipid, DOSS and SDS) in different concentrations. RESULTS: Independently of the measuring method, an increase in osmolality with increasing concentration was observed for all polymers and surfactants, as would be expected due to the physicochemical origin of the osmolality. No correlation was found between the molecular weight of the polymers and the measured osmolality. The osmolality values were different for PVPs, PEGs, and Na-CMC using the two different measurement methods. The values obtained by the freezing point depression method tended to be similar or higher than the ones provided by vapor pressure, overall showing a significant difference in the osmolality measured by the two investigated methods. CONCLUSIONS: For lower osmolality values (e.g. surfactants), the choice of the measuring method was not critical, both the freezing point depression and vapor pressure could be used. However, when the formulations contained higher concentrations of excipients and/or thermosensitive excipients, the data suggests that the vapor pressure method would be more suited.
Authors: Haya Ascher-Svanum; Douglas E Faries; Baojin Zhu; Frank R Ernst; Marvin S Swartz; Jeff W Swanson Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Maria Malamatari; Kevin M G Taylor; Stavros Malamataris; Dennis Douroumis; Kyriakos Kachrimanis Journal: Drug Discov Today Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 7.851
Authors: S Swindells; M Siccardi; S E Barrett; D B Olsen; J A Grobler; A T Podany; E Nuermberger; P Kim; C E Barry; A Owen; D Hazuda; C Flexner Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Martina Kovarova; S Rahima Benhabbour; Ivana Massud; Rae Ann Spagnuolo; Brianna Skinner; Caroline E Baker; Craig Sykes; Katie R Mollan; Angela D M Kashuba; J Gerardo García-Lerma; Russell J Mumper; J Victor Garcia Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-10-08 Impact factor: 14.919