4.7 Article

Comparison of different in vitro release methods used to investigate nanocarriers intended for dermal application

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
Volume 513, Issue 1-2, Pages 247-254

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2016.09.033

Keywords

Dialysis bag; Discriminative dissolution testing; Franz diffusion cell; in situ drug release; in vitro drug release; Skin nanocarriers

Funding

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) with Sonderforschungsbereich (SFB) [1112]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In vitro drug release measurement is one of the most important methods used to assess the quality of a nanocarrier and estimate it's in vivo performance. Different in vitro drug release methods have been used to investigate the drug release from nanocarriers, however, little information is available with regard to a comparison of these methods (e.g. discriminative power, reproducibility). Thus, drug release from four nanocarriers (nanocrystals, lipid nanoparticles, Eudragit (R) RS and ethyl cellulose nanoparticles) was investigated under sink and non-sink conditions with three drug release methods: an in situ method using Sirius (R) inForm and two in vitro methods using dialysis bags and Franz diffusion cells. Dexamethasone was used as the model drug. The in situ measurement was a simple and fast method but not adequately discriminating because of a too rapid drug dissolution/release. Franz diffusion cells and dialysis bags were in most cases discriminative for the different nanocarriers with the drug dissolution/release being in the order of nanocrystals > Eudragit (R) RS nanoparticles > lipid nanoparticles > ethyl cellulose nanoparticles. Drug release experiments with Franz diffusion cells had the highest reproducibility. The Franz diffusion cells could also be easily used with semisolid dosage forms. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available