Abstract - KU Leuvenet+al_IJP_… · Web viewThis leads to their continuous impregnation and drying thus resulting in drug-loaded ... single processing unit procedure was applied
Post on 30-Jan-2018
213 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Drug loaded and ethylcellulose coated mesoporous silica for controlled drug release
prepared using a pilot scale fluid bed system
Youcef Chakib Hacene, Abhishek Singh, Guy Van den Mooter*
Drug Delivery and Disposition, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
*Corresponding author:
Address- Drug Delivery and Disposition, Department of Pharmaceutical and
Pharmacological Sciences, University of Leuven; Campus Gasthuisberg O+N2;
Herestraat 49 b921, 3000 Leuven; BELGIUM
Tel.: +32 16 330 304 fax: +32 16 330 305 Mobile: +32 473 356 132
e-mail: guy.vandenmooter@pharm.kuleuven.be
1
Abstract
The goal of this study was to test the feasibility to load non-ordered, non-
sperical mesoporous silica with the model drug paracetamol, and subsequently coat
the loaded particles using one single pilot scale fluid bed system equipped with a
Wurster insert. Mesoporous silica particles (Davisil®) with a size ranging from 310 to
500 µm and an average pore diameter of 15 nm were loaded with paracetamol to
18.8% drug content. Subsequently, loaded cores were coated with ethylcellulose to
obtain controlled drug release. Coating processing variables were varied following a
full factorial design and their effect on drug release was assessed. Increasing coating
solution feed rate and decreasing fluidizing air temperature were found to increase
drug release rates. Increasing pore former level and decreasing coating level were
found to increase drug release rates. The release medium’s osmolality was varied
using different sodium chloride concentrations, which was found to affect drug
release rates. The results of this study clearly indicate the potential of non-ordered,
non-spherical mesoporous silica as a reservoir carrier for the controlled release of
drugs. Although non-spherical, we were able to reproducibly coat this carrier using a
bottom spray fluid bed system. However, a major hurdle that needs to be tackled is
the attrition the material suffers from during fluid bed processing.
Keywords
Mesoporous silica, controlled drug release, coating, drug loading, ethylcellulose, PVP
K30
2
1. Introduction
The oral route is still the preferred option for drug administration due to its minimal
invasiveness and requirement for assistance. Controlled oral drug delivery presents
several advantages over immediate release, such as increased patient compliance,
reduced side effects and maintenance of the plasma drug concentrations for longer
periods of time ( Conley et al., 2006; Salsa et al., 1997). This mode of drug delivery
has been extensively studied and as a result several techniques and technologies
have been developed. The matrix system is the most widely used and typically
consists of a carrier and active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) mixture from which
the API is released in a predetermined manner (Tiwari and Rajabi-Siahboomi, 2008).
The reservoir system has a core-shell structure, with a drug containing core coated
with a polymeric membrane (Tang et al., 2012). When the coating is water insoluble it
controls drug release which can be prolonged over a period of time. From such
systems, drug molecules are released into the aqueous medium via three principal
mechanisms viz. drug diffusion through the continuous polymer phase, drug diffusion
through water filled pores situated within the coating membrane, and osmotic
pumping when an osmotic pressure gradient between the inside and the outside of
the reservoir exists (Ozturk et al., 1990). Multiple steps are involved in the
preparation of the reservoir systems starting with the preparation of the drug
containing cores which are typically either granules or extrudates, or layered inert
pellets. Next a polymeric film is applied on the cores containing the drug using a pilot
scale fluid bed system (Felton and Porter, 2013; Guignon et al., 2002).
According to the IUPAC nomenclature, mesoporous materials are porous
structures with a pore diameter ranging between 2 to 50 nm. Mesoporous silica is
made up of silica-based porous frameworks which are characterized by a wide
3
surface area that permits the adsorption of the guest molecules ( Singh et al., 2011).
With respect to oral drug delivery, these materials have been widely studied as drug
carriers during the past decade by various research groups for either controlled drug
delivery or for improving bioavailability of poorly water soluble drugs (Mellaerts et al.
2008; Limnell et al., 2011; Vallet-Regi et al., 2001; Vialpando et al., 2011). It has
been shown that release of drug molecules from such carriers can be prolonged by
tuning the pore diameter (Qu et al., 2006), pore length and surface chemistry of the
carrier (Song et al., 2005), or delayed by functionalization with pH-responsive ligands
(Pérez-Esteve et al., 2015).
Various loading methods for mesoporous silica materials have been reported
(Limnell et al., 2011; Mellaerts et al., 2008). The most common approach consists of
soaking the porous materials with a drug containing solution followed by solvent
evaporation. A practical way to achieve such a process is by using a fluid bed
system, where the porous carrier particles are suspended in a drug solution and
spray-dried within the fluid bed reactor (Limnell et al., 2011) or fluidized and sprayed
with a drug containing solution (Nagane et al., 2014). This leads to their continuous
impregnation and drying thus resulting in drug-loaded porous carrier particles.
The objective of this study was to investigate the potential/feasibility of non-
ordered, non-spherical mesoporous silica to be processed in a pilot scale fluid bed
system as a reservoir carrier for controlled drug release of poorly soluble drugs.
Coating of mesoporous silica particles is very challenging due to its non-spherical
nature. The coating was performed by a bottom spraying fluid bed system equipped
with a Wurster insert. Paracetamol was chosen as a model drug and ethylcellulose
as model coating polymer. A multiple step, single processing unit procedure was
applied in order to load the porous particles with the drug, coat the drug-loaded
4
particles with a polymeric rate controlling membrane, and dry off the residual solvent.
Three processing parameters, namely fluidizing air volume, coating solution feed rate
and fluidizing air inlet temperature, were varied during the coating step according to a
full factorial design. A total of 9 experiments were performed in order to assess the
effect of processing conditions on drug release characteristics. Out of the 9
experiments conducted, experimental conditions of one of these experiments was
chosen and kept constant for further investigations and for which the experimental
variance was investigated. The quantitative and qualitative composition of the coating
layer’s effect on the product’s characteristics was examined. Particle size distribution,
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and the effect of release medium osmolality on
drug release were also determined.
5
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Davisil® LC150A was purchased from Grace (Worms, Germany). These
mesoporous silica particles are characterized by non-sphericity, a mean pore
diameter of 15 nm, total surface area of 330 m²/g and particle size ranging from 315
to 500 µm. Paracetamol was purchased from Fagron (Saint Denis, France).
Ethylcellulose (48-49.5% ethoxyl content) was acquired from Sigma Aldrich (The
Netherlands). Polyvinylpyrrolidone K30 (PVP K30) was a gift sample from BASF
(Ludwigshafen, Germany). Dibutyl Sebacate was obtained from TCI chemicals
(Tokyo, Japan), Disinfectol®, a 95:5 v:v ethanol:ether mixture was purchased from
Chem-Lab nv (Zedelgem, Belgium). Sodium Chloride was acquired from Fisher
Chemicals (Leicestershire, United Kingdom), Ultrapure water was produced from an
ELGA Maxima apparatus (Bucks, England).
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Carrier loading and coating
The overall process of loading and coating of the mesoporous cores can be
divided into 5 steps. In the first step, the carrier was loaded with a paracetamol
solution. An Aeromatic MP1 multiprocessor (GEA Pharma, Bubendorf, Switzerland)
fluid bed system was employed. 400 grams of the carrier was fluidized and sprayed
with a 10% w/v solution (obtained by adding 100 g of ultrapure water to 100 g of
paracetamol, and further making up the volume to 1 liter with denatured ethanol).
The fluidizing air rate (expressed as function of the pressure drop between the inlet
and outlet air) was 25 Pa, spraying air pressure 1 bar, solution feed rate 28 ml/min,
inlet air temperature 35 °C, and a total spray duration of 35 minutes were used as
process parameters. In the second step, solvent evaporation was further continued
6
by drying the particles during 25 min in the fluid bed system using the same
parameters.
Due to attrition of the silica particles during the fluidization process, we had to
build in a sieving step. In this step the loaded particles were sieved to obtain particles
with size >300 µm. Subsequently, the material was coated with a 9% w:v solution of
ethylcellulose (always containing dibutyl sebacate as plasticizer in a concentration of
25% wrt ethylcellulose). The spray solution was heated at 35 °C and stirred during
the entire coating operation. The final step consisted of drying the coated particles in
situ for 30 minutes at 50 °C with an air volume fixed at 10 Pa and the atomizing air
pressure switched off.
2.2.2. Experimental design
In order to study the effect of process parameters on the drug release properties,
and to select the most appropriate experimental conditions, a full factorial design with
a central point (a total of 9 experiments) was performed. The selected process
parameters to be varied were the air volume, the coating solution feed rate and the
inlet air temperature. Batch size, spraying pressure (set at 1.5 bar), solution
temperature and concentration were kept constant. The values corresponding to
different levels of the investigated process parameters are presented in table 1. The
9 experiments and corresponding process parameters levels are reported in table 2.
On the basis of the results obtained from these 9 experiments, one set of processing
conditions was selected and kept constant for further investigations related to the
effect of formulation parameters on the product’s properties and experimental
variance was assessed for that particular set of processing parameters.
After experiments E0 to E8, investigation of pore former inclusion within the
coating membrane and different coating levels on release rates was conducted.
7
Loaded carriers were coated with 100g mixture of ethylcellulose and PVP K30 in the
ratio of 9:1 or 9.5:0.5 (w/w). In these samples, 25% of dibutyl sebacate wrt. total
polymer weight was added as plasticizer. The above experiments are labelled as 5%
PVP K30 and 10% PVP K30. When discussing these results, E8 is labelled as 0%
PVP K30.
In addition to batches E0 to E8 which were coated with 100 g of ethylcellulose,
loaded carriers were also coated with polymeric membranes containing 40, 60 and
80 g of ethylcellulose, plasticized with 25% of dibutyl sebacate wrt. total polymer
weight. The expected coating material to total weight ratio equals 10%, 14.3%,
18.2% and 21.7% respectively for 40, 60, 80 and 100 g of ethylcellulose and the
corresponding products are noted L10, L14, L18 and L21 respectively.
2.2.3. Drug content determination
5 grams of sample was added to 200 ml of denatured ethanol to dissolve all
materials. Samples were withdrawn and analyzed by UV Spectrophotometry in the
linear range of the calibration curve (see 2.2.5).
2.2.4. Drug release experiments
Drug release assays were conducted using an SR8 Plus Dissolution Test Station
equipped with paddles rotating at 100 RPM (Hanson Research, Chartsworth, CA,
USA). 5 g sample was added to the 1 Liter dissolution medium at 37°C.
Demineralized water or a NaCl solution were used to investigate drug release. The
latter medium was used to test the effect of the medium’s osmolality.
Aliquots were withdrawn at predetermined time intervals, filtered using Chromophil
O-45/15MS filters (Duren, Germany) and replaced with fresh solvent. The withdrawn
8
quantities of solute were taken into consideration in the calculation of the
concentration. Concentration determination was done using UV spectrophotometry.
2.2.5. UV-spectrophotometry for paracetamol analysis
UV spectrophotometric analysis was performed using a Genesys 10S UV-Vis
spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Erembodegem, Belgium). The calibration
curve was found to be linear between 125 mg/l and 1 mg/l (R²= 0.9998). The
samples were measured at 287 nm and 290 nm for aqueous and denatured ethanolic
solutions, respectively.
2.2.6. Particle size distribution
Particle size distribution for each batch was determined in the dry state using
laser light scattering (Mastersizer 2000, Malvern, UK). The particle size is
represented by the equivalent volume diameter D, and results are reported as first,
fifth and ninth deciles from the particle size distribution for each batch.
2.2.7. Scanning electron microscopy
The morphology and surface characteristics of unloaded, loaded, and coated
carriers was investigated. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images were
recorded using a Phillips XL30 SEM-FEG (Eindhoven, The Netherlands) equipped
with a Schottky field-emission electron gun. A beam of 15 kV was used and detection
was performed using a conventional Everhart-Thornley secondary electron detector.
The samples were affixed onto an aluminum stub with a double-sided adhesive
carbon tape and then coated with platinum under vacuum using a sputtering device
(Balzers Union, Liechtenstein) before imaging.
9
2.2.8. Statistical analysis
The data was tested using Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The test
was performed for equal variances and curve fittings were conducted using Minitab
17 (Minitab Inc., PA, USA).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Drug loading
The loading method consisting of fluidizing and spraying the particles in a Wurster
system is mechanistically similar to the incipient wetness method which consists of
adding a volume of solution that is equal to the total pore volume leading to solution
penetration into the capillaries (Mellaerts et al., 2008). In our case, each particle
going through the spraying zone received a certain volume of drug solution that
ideally gets absorbed by the carrier and subsequently the particle exits the spraying
cone. The carrier loses solvent due to the drying capacity of the system and
eventually reaches back the spraying zone for another loading/drying cycle. The
product obtained at the end consists of mesoporous particles loaded with drug and
residual solvent. We observed considerable attrition due to friction in the fluid bed
system. Hence, in order to eliminate particles of size <300 µm which can cause
clogging of the nozzle during the coating phase, we had to introduce a sieving step.
The quantitative and qualitative composition of the products obtained from the
fluid bed after loading, coating and sieving are given in table 3. The solvent content
was determined by drying at 65 °C in a ventilated oven until constant mass was
reached. Compared to the starting materials, at the end of the third step 34.6 g of
silica and 15.4 g of paracetamol was lost. Out of this, 63.35% of silica and 33% of
paracetamol was lost during sieving. The remaining fraction was lost during loading
and coating.
10
There are numerous possible reasons for the loss of the material upon processing.
The attrition of carrier particles generates fines that serves as nuclei for
agglomeration and drug layering (Guignon et al., 2002). These particles are ejected
out of the system through the top filter afterwards. Although loss of drug as a
consequence of poor process conditions leading to spray drying of the drug solution
rather than drug loading in the silica can also occur, it is unlikely since spray drying
should typically be accompanied with the generation of a fine drug powder
(Broadhead et al., 1992), which was not observed during carrier loading in this study.
The theoretical drug loading by using a 4:1 carrier to drug weight ratio is 20%
w:w wrt. the final product weight. In our case, experimental drug loading obtained
was 18.8% w:w wrt. the total weight, which represents 94% of the value aimed for
initially.
Table 4 provides the particle size distribution from samples representative of all
prepared batches, including drug-free and drug-loaded silica particles. An overall
decrease in the particle size was observed upon drug loading which can be attributed
to both particle attrition due to mechanical stress upon fluidization, and to a powdery
fraction of the drug that remained on the surface of carrier particles after solvent
drying. This generates a smaller size fraction which can be observed on the surface
of drug loaded silica particles in figure 1, which overall appear to have a higher
rugosity as compared to the pure silica particles.
3.2. Drug content and effect of processing parameters on drug release
At the beginning of step 4, 450 g (dry weight) of the substrate was used for
coating. The dry weight of the product obtained at the end of phase 5 equals 525g
on average. The theoretical maximal dry weight equals 575g calculated by summing
up the substrate and the coating material dry weights, signifying that 50 g of material
11
was lost during steps 4 and 5. Paracetamol content for products E0 to E8 are
reported in table 5, and was found to equal 73.5g on average, corresponding to 14%
of the total weight.
Polymeric film coating of the loaded carrier particles was successful. This was
demonstrated by the gradual drug release in an aqueous medium from all the
batches as compared to the drug release from drug-loaded but uncoated silica
particles (figure 2). The cumulative drug release kinetics were different from one
batch to another, indicating that varying process parameters impacts end product
drug release characteristics. For instance, it was observed that increasing fluidizing
air inlet temperature from 35°C to 50°C resulted in a decrease in drug release, as
shown in figure 3, where high temperature batches release profiles are represented
in red, and low temperature batches in green. Decreasing coating solution feed rate
from 12 ml/min to 4 ml/min resulted in decreased drug release rates, as shown in
figure 4, where high feed rate batches release profiles are represented in red and low
feed rate batches release profiles in green. This can be explained by solvent
penetration of the loaded carrier upon spraying, which is likely to be higher when the
feed rate is at a higher level and temperature at a lower level. Upon penetration, the
solvent dissolves the drug which diffuses through the liquid phase, from the pores
towards the exterior due to a gradient in concentration, hence causing premature
drug release. After numerous spraying and drying cycles it results in a coating layer
that contains more drug in high feed rate batches than in low feed rate batches and
this results in a quicker release of the drug upon contact with water. Also, in this case
a more permeable membrane is expected since the drug present within the
membrane will act as a pore former. Obviously, the drug migration towards the
exterior of the carrier during coating is expected to be limited and decrease with time,
12
since the applied coating layer increases with time. This will “seal” the particle
thereby decreasing solvent penetration towards the core and drug diffusion towards
the coating layer.
From table 4, an increase in the overall particle size distribution upon coating can
be observed. This is attributed to the fact that upon spraying the coating solution,
small dusty particles are embedded within the coating layer resulting in a positive
shift of the overall particle size distribution. As expected, the higher coating solution
feed rate (12 ml/min) for batches E1, E2, E5 and E6 resulted in an overall higher
coated particle diameter as compared to the lower feed rate (4 ml/min) for batches
E3, E4, E7 and E8. The results clearly indicate that no lumps or aggregated coated
particles were formed and that individual silica particles were coated.
The factorial design’s surface responses are provided in figure 5, where drug
release at 2 hours was considered as a response, noted Y, and fluidizing air volume,
inlet air temperature and coating solution feed rate are noted X1, X2 and X3,
respectively. For the same reasons cited previously, response surfaces show an
increased drug release after 2 hours when feed rate is increased or inlet air
temperature is decreased. In comparison, fluidizing air volume has a lesser impact
on the drug release and is maximal when feed rate is at its highest level, with
increasing fluidizing air volume resulting in decreased drug release after two hours.
Figure 6 provides SEM images of samples from batches E8 and E2, produced at
low and high feed rate levels respectively. It is noticeable that batch E8 particles are
homogeneously coated with an apparently smooth polymeric layer and show little to
no surface defects. Batch E2 particles on the other hand appear to be rougher and
show a superior extent of defects, presumably due to solvent penetration into the
pores during coating and subsequent drug migration towards the coating layer, as
13
well as aggregation and subsequent breakage of aggregates which results in surface
cracks and therefore in a fast drug release.
From the 9 initial experiments, processing parameters corresponding to E8 were
chosen to be kept constant for further investigations. Experimental variance was
investigated for the above chosen set of processing conditions by producing a
replicate of E8 (labelled as E8D). Although apparently close in shape, the two drug
release curves were compared by means of multivariate analysis of variance (Figure
7). MANOVA was conducted using 4 time points at a time and then the two
remaining time points. The p-values for 1-4, 5-8 and 9-10 hours were 0.065, 0.749
and 0.141 respectively. Hence, no statistically significant difference was found for
time-points h1-h4, h5-h8 and h9-h10 separately. E8 and E8D release curves were
also compared by means of difference factor f1 and similarity factor f2, which
indicated similar drug release kinetics between the two batches (f1 = 4, f2 = 79).
Therefore the two release curves are considered to be statistically similar and the
experimental variance can be considered to be negligible for the experimental
conditions corresponding to experiment E8. This implies that for further experiments
where the effects of formulation variables were investigated, differences in release
profiles between batches was not caused by random fluctuations during the
processing stage and can therefore be attributed to variations in formulation
parameters.
3.3. Effect of pore former level on drug release
PVP K30 which is a water soluble polymer was incorporated in the coating layer
as a pore former. Upon contact with water, PVP K30 dissolves which results in
increased membrane permeability due to increased extent of drug release through
water filled pores. Figure 8 shows the drug release profiles from loaded mesoporous
14
particles coated with membranes containing 0% (E8), 5% and 10% PVP K30. The
drug content is reported in table 6. As expected drug release rate increases with
increased pore former level, indicating an increase of coating permeability due the
leaching out of PVP K30 from the coating layer which is similar to what is observed in
classical reservoir systems (Lecomte et al., 2003).
3.4. Effect of coating level on drug release
Drug release assays were conducted on L10, L14, L18 and E8 (labeled as L21 in
this figure), corresponding to coating levels 10%, 14%, 18% and 21% respectively.
Drug content and release for the batches L10, L14 and L18 are reported in table 6
and figure 9 respectively. Prolonged drug release from the reservoir systems is
typically comprised of a linear part during which part of the drug contained within the
coated cores is still undissolved resulting in a constant concentration gradient
between the inside and the outside of the reservoir and therefore a constant drug
release rate (Siepmann and Siepmann, 2012). During that phase, drug release is
given by the equation: M=K .D .S .C s
Lt
where K is the partition coefficient of the drug between the membrane and the
release medium, S is the total surface area of the rate controlling membrane, D is the
diffusivity of the drug in the coating membrane, CS is the saturation concentration of
the drug inside the reservoir, and L the thickness of the coating. The linear part of the
drug release profile is followed by a nonlinear part during which all of the drug
contained within the cores is dissolved and drug release rate decreases and reaches
zero eventually. A regression equation of the form y = ax + b was fitted to the drug
release data points corresponding to the linear part (Figure 10). Here, the slope ‘a’ is
the average drug release rate during the corresponding period of time, and the
15
deviation from the intercept ‘b’ corresponds to the amount of drug released
immediately upon contact with water, also called burst release. For batches L21, L18
and L14, zero order kinetics were maintained up to approximately 70% cumulative
drug release, corresponding to 6 hours, 5 hours and 2 hours durations of drug
release with R² values of 0.997, 0.998 and 0.989 respectively. On the other hand,
drug release up to 70% of drug content from L10 was linear during 40 minutes. It
was also observed that the computed average drug release rate for the considered
periods of time increased with higher coating levels, shifting from 11.8 %/h to 76.9
%/h when the coating level is reduced from 21 % to 10 %. The same trend is
observed for the computed burst release which increases from 2.4 % to 19.1% of
burst release when the coating level is reduced from 21 % to 10 %. The fact that the
drug release profile is linear and is maintained up to 70% of drug content for L21, L18
and L14 indicates that for these 3 coating levels, a virtually complete occlusion of
drug-containing mesopores by the coating was achieved (Muschert et al., 2009). This
results in the drug diffusion according to the previously described kinetics through the
pore-occluding polymeric membrane (Ozturk et al., 1990). On the other hand it
appears that a 10% coating level was not sufficient to efficiently occlude the majority
of the drug containing pores, as demonstrated by the poor linearity of the drug
release profile of the L10 batch and its relatively higher amount of drug burst release.
The SEM images shown in figure 11 and figure 5 (b, c) show noticeable
differences in terms of morphology and surface texture between the three coating
levels of 21%, 14% and 10%. An increase in smoothness and a decrease in apparent
defects with increasing coating levels is also evident which can be correlated with the
decreased drug release rate and burst release. This is expected since a defective
coating cannot sustain drug release thereby resulting in burst release effect. On the
16
other hand, decreasing surface roughness with increasing coating level indicates that
coating materials remain on the external surface and do not penetrate the mesopores
otherwise the external texture would have remained unchanged.
3.5. Effect of release medium’s osmolality on drug release
Investigation of the release medium osmolality’s effect on the release rate was
also conducted by preparing sodium chloride solutions of different molarities used as
release media. Experiments were conducted in duplicate. The concentrations of the
different solutions were 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 molar, corresponding to 0.2 osmol/kg,
0.4 osmol/kg, 0.6 osmol/kg and 0.8 osmol/kg. As it is expected from reservoir
systems (Ozturk et al., 1990), drug release kinetics were affected by the release
medium’s osmolality (figure 12). This is attributed to the osmotic pressure gradient
driven drug release mechanism. With increasing the release medium’s osmolality the
osmotic pressure gradient between the two boundaries of the rate controlling
membrane is decreased which in turn decreases the extent of drug release via
osmotic pumping.
4. Conclusion
In this study prolonged drug release was achieved based on commercially
available non-ordered and randomly (non-spherical) shaped mesoporous silica
particles as drug carriers. The carriers were successfully coated with an
ethylcellulose membrane from an organic solution using a pilot scale fluid bed system
as a unique processing unit. Based on the results of our experiments, drug contained
in the mesopores in such systems is isolated from the release medium with a
polymeric membrane that occludes the entrances of the pores which in turn aids in
modulating its release towards the external medium. Drug release from these loaded
and coated mesoporous materials followed the same trends usually observed with
17
classical reservoir systems. The unique formulation manufacturing approach we
investigated is potentially interesting for the preparation of modified/controlled
release from multiparticulate dosage forms for poorly soluble drugs. It requires only
one processing unit for the production of the coated multiparticulates. The
investigation of controlled drug release following the same principle can be further
continued for achieving site-specific or timed drug delivery of a single drug or a
combination of drugs.
Although in the present study, for process optimization, particles with a diameter
smaller than 300 µm were eliminated by sifting prior to coating, processing such
small particles would be feasible at a condition their size distribution is sufficiently
narrow.
One important remark is the significant attrition of the silica particles during
processing, which is a point of concern that needs to be tackled before this material
can be considered as reservoir carrier in fluid bed based manufacturing processes.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Mr. Duong Nhat Nguyen for his assistance with SEM.
Abhishek Singh acknowledges the financial support via an OT grant number
(OT/12/077) from KU Leuven.
18
References
Broadhead, J., Rouan, S.K.E., Rhodes, C.T., 1992. The spray drying of pharmaceuticals.
Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 18, 1169–1206. doi:10.3109/03639049209046327
Conley, R., Gupta, S.K., Sathyan, G., 2006. Clinical spectrum of the osmotic-controlled
release oral delivery system (OROS), an advanced oral delivery form. Curr. Med.
Res. Opin. 22, 1879–1892. doi:10.1185/030079906X132613
Felton, L.A., Porter, S.C., 2013. An update on pharmaceutical film coating for drug delivery.
Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 10, 421–435. doi:10.1517/17425247.2013.763792
Guignon, B., Duquenoy, A., Dumoulin, E.D., 2002. Fluid Bed Encapsulation of Particles:
Principles and Practice. Dry. Technol. 20, 419–447. doi:10.1081/DRT-120002550
Lecomte, F., Siepmann, J., Walther, M., MacRae, R.J., Bodmeier, R., 2003. Blends of enteric
and GIT-insoluble polymers used for film coating: physicochemical characterization
and drug release patterns. J. Controlled Release 89, 457–471. doi:10.1016/S0168-
3659(03)00155-X
Limnell, T., Santos, H.A., Mäkilä, E., Heikkilä, T., Salonen, J., Murzin, D.Y., Kumar, N.,
Laaksonen, T., Peltonen, L., Hirvonen, J., 2011. Drug delivery formulations of ordered
19
and nonordered mesoporous silica: comparison of three drug loading methods. J.
Pharm. Sci. 100, 3294–3306. doi:10.1002/jps.22577
Mellaerts, R., Jammaer, J.A.G., Van Speybroeck, M., Chen, H., Humbeeck, J.V., Augustijns,
P., Van den Mooter, G., Martens, J.A., 2008. Physical State of Poorly Water Soluble
Therapeutic Molecules Loaded into SBA-15 Ordered Mesoporous Silica Carriers: A
Case Study with Itraconazole and Ibuprofen. Langmuir 24, 8651–8659.
doi:10.1021/la801161g
Muschert, S., Siepmann, F., Leclercq, B., Carlin, B., Siepmann, J., 2009. Prediction of drug
release from ethylcellulose coated pellets. J. Controlled Release 135, 71–79.
doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2008.12.003
Nagane, K., Kimura, S., Ukai, K., Ogawa, N., Yamamoto, H., 2014. Practical approach to
prepare solid dispersion drug product using spherical silicate. Int. J. Pharm. 475,
364–371. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2014.08.016
Ozturk, A.G., Ozturk, S.S., Palsson, B.O., Wheatley, T.A., Dressman, J.B., 1990. Mechanism
of release from pellets coated with an ethylcellulose-based film. J. Controlled Release
14, 203–213. doi:10.1016/0168-3659(90)90160-U
Pérez-Esteve, É., Fuentes, A., Coll, C., Acosta, C., Bernardos, A., Amorós, P., Marcos, M.D.,
Sancenón, F., Martínez-Máñez, R., Barat, J.M., 2015. Modulation of folic acid
bioaccessibility by encapsulation in pH-responsive gated mesoporous silica particles.
Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 202, 124–132.
doi:10.1016/j.micromeso.2014.09.049
Qu, F., Zhu, G., Huang, S., Li, S., Sun, J., Zhang, D., Qiu, S., 2006. Controlled release of
Captopril by regulating the pore size and morphology of ordered mesoporous silica.
Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 92, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.micromeso.2005.12.004
Salsa, T., Veiga, F., Pina, M.E., 1997. Oral Controlled-Release Dosage Forms. I. Cellulose
Ether Polymers in Hydrophilic Matrices. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 23, 929–938.
doi:10.3109/03639049709148697
20
Siepmann, J., Siepmann, F., 2012. Modeling of diffusion controlled drug delivery. J.
Controlled Release, Drug Delivery Research in Europe 161, 351–362.
doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.10.006
Singh, A., Worku, Z.A., Van den Mooter, G., 2011. Oral formulation strategies to improve
solubility of poorly water-soluble drugs. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 8, 1361-1378.
Song, S.-W., Hidajat, K., Kawi, S., 2005. Functionalized SBA-15 Materials as Carriers for
Controlled Drug Delivery: Influence of Surface Properties on Matrix−Drug
Interactions. Langmuir 21, 9568–9575. doi:10.1021/la051167e
Tang, E.S.K., Chan, L.W., Heng, D.P.W.S., 2012. Coating of multiparticulates for sustained
release. Am. J. Drug Deliv. 3, 17–28. doi:10.2165/00137696-200503010-00003
Tiwari, S., Rajabi-Siahboomi, A., 2008. Extended-Release Oral Drug Delivery Technologies:
Monolithic Matrix Systems, in: Jain, K. (Ed.), Drug Delivery Systems, Methods in
Molecular BiologyTM. Humana Press, pp. 217–243.
Vallet-Regi, M., Rámila, A., del Real, R.P., Pérez-Pariente, J., 2001. A New Property of
MCM-41: Drug Delivery System. Chem. Mater. 13, 308–311.
doi:10.1021/cm0011559
Vialpando, M., Aerts, A., Persoons, J., Martens, J., Van den Mooter, G., 2011. Evaluation of
ordered mesoporous silica as a carrier for poorly soluble drugs: Influence of pressure
on the structure and drug release. J. Pharm. Sci. 100, 3411–3420.
doi:10.1002/jps.22535
21
Captions to figures
Figure 1: SEM images of (a) pure silica particles and (b) drug-loaded silica particles.
Figure 2: Drug release profiles for batches E0 to E8. Error bars indicate standard
deviations (n=3).
Figure 3: Drug release profiles for batches E1 to E8. Curves with same symbols differ
only in feed rate with red and green corresponding to high and low feed rate levels
respectively. Error bars correspond to standard deviations (n=3).
Figure 4: Drug release profiles for batches E1, E2, E5 and E6, curves with same
symbols differ only in temperature with red and green corresponding to high and low
temperature levels respectively. Error bars indicate standard deviations (n=3).
Figure 5: Full factorial design’s response surfaces, with Y = drug release at 2 h, X1 =
Fluidizing air volume, X2 = Inlet air temperature, X3 = Feed rate.
Figure 6: SEM images of particles from batches: (a) E2 and (b) and (c) E8.
Figure 7: Drug release profiles for batches E8 and E8D. Error bars indicate standard
deviations (n=3).
Figure 8: Drug release profiles from loaded particles coated with 0%, 5% and 10%
PVP K30. Error bars indicate the standard deviation (n=3).
Figure 9: Drug release profiles from samples with different coating levels. Error bars
indicate standard deviations (n=3).
Figure 10: Linear parts of drug release profiles from batches L10, L14, 18 and L21
and corresponding fitting factors.
Figure 11: SEM images of particles from batches L10 (a, b, c) and L14 (d, e, f).
22
Figure 12: Drug release profiles from E8 in media with different osmolalities. Error
bars indicate the data range (n=2).
23
Fig1
24
Fig2
25
Fig 3
26
Fig 4
27
Fig 528
Fig 6
29
Fig 7
30
Fig 8
31
Fig 9
32
Fig 10
33
Fig 11
34
Fig 12
35
Tables
Table 1: Variables and levels of the full factorial design.
Variable level Air volume (Pa) Temperature (°C) Feed rate
(ml/min)
+ 50.0 50.0 12.0
0 37.5 42.5 8.0
- 25.0 35.0 4.0
36
Table 2: Experimental design runs and corresponding levels.
Experiment Air volume Temperature Feed rate
E0 0 0 0
E1 + + +
E2 - - +
E3 - + -
E4 + - -
E5 - + +
E6 + - +
E7 + + -
E8 - - -
37
Table 3: Composition of products at the end of steps 2 and 3 (Value ± standard deviations, n= 3).
Time Carrier (g) Solvent (g) Paracetamol (g)
Time zero 400.0 0.0 0.0
End of phase 2 387.3 ± 7.9 53.0 ± 1.0 89.7 ± 1.5
End of phase 3 365.4 ± 7.7 50.0 ± 1.0 84.6 ± 1.4
38
Table 4: First, fifth and ninth deciles from particle size distributions of various
batches (Value ± standard deviations, n= 3).
Batch D(0,1)
(µm)
D(0,5)
(µm)
D(0,9)
(µm)
Batch D(0,1)
(µm)
D(0,5)
(µm)
D(0,9)
(µm)
Pure
silica
178 ± 7 371 ± 8 630 ± 7 E7 356 ± 4 484 ± 7 655 ± 9
Uncoat
ed
109 ± 4 314 ± 7 569 ±
10
E8 334 ± 6 454 ± 8 616 ± 7
E0 370 ±
10
509 ± 8 704 ±
11
E8D 342 ± 8 466 ± 5 634 ± 8
E1 355 ± 8 485 ± 9 661 ± 8 L18 331 ± 6 453 ± 7 619 ± 9
E2 389 ± 6 544 ±
10
775 ± 9 L14 326 ± 5 443 ± 8 602 ± 7
E3 328 ± 4 445 ± 6 603 ± 6 L10 327 ± 8 450 ± 6 624 ±
10
E4 352 ± 7 481 ± 8 653 ± 7 PVP5 339 ± 7 465 ± 7 638 ± 9
E5 350 ± 6 480 ±
11
656 ± 8 PVP10 323 ± 5 441 ± 6 597 ± 7
E6 362 ±
10
497 ±
10
680 ± 9
39
Table 5: Drug content in batches E1 to E8D.
Batch E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 Averag
e
Total drug content (g) 76.6 73.3 71.9 71.4 76.2 73.5
Total:drug weight
ratio (%)
14.6 14.0 13.7 13.6 14.5 14.0
Batch E6 E7 E8 E0 E8D SD
Total drug content (g) 74.8 73.7 73.1 72.4 71.3 1.9
Total:drug weight
ratio (%)
14.2 14.0 13.9 13.8 13.6 0.4
40
Table 6: Drug contents in batches 5% PVP to L18.
Batch 5% PVP 10%PVP L10 L14 L18
Total drug content (g) 73.8 72.8 71.8 72.7 76.6
Total:drug weight ratio
(%)
14.0 13.9 16.0 15.3 15.3
41
top related