4.4 Article

Formulation and in vivo evaluation of effervescent inhalable carrier particles for pulmonary delivery of nanoparticles

Journal

DRUG DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL PHARMACY
Volume 34, Issue 9, Pages 943-947

Publisher

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.1080/03639040802149079

Keywords

nanoparticle; pulmonary delivery; carrier particles; effervescent; cyanoacrylate

Funding

  1. NSERC
  2. Alberta Cancer Board
  3. University of Alberta
  4. Strategic Training Program in Translational Cancer Research
  5. National Cancer Institute of Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of a new inhalable effervescent carrier preparation containing model nanoparticles. Spray-freeze drying was used to prepare inhalable powders containing butylcyanoacrylate nanoparticles. The particle size of the nanoparticles before incorporation into the effervescent carrier and after dissolving the carrier powder was measured using laser light scattering. The particle size distribution of the effervescent carrier aerosol particles was measured using a cascade impactor. The prepared powder was tested in vivo using five Balb/c nude mice. The animals were treated with 1 mg of inhalable powder every week for 4 weeks. The body weight and morbidity score of the mice were observed over an 8-week period. The effervescent activity of the inhalable nanoparticle powder was observed when the powder was exposed to humidity. The particle size of the nanoparticles did not change significantly after spray-freeze drying. The mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) of the prepared powder was 4.80 2.12 m, which is suitable for lung delivery. The animals that were treated with effervescent powder tolerated the administration without any changes in their morbidity scores. Our pilot study demonstrates that pulmonary nanoparticle delivery via effervescent carrier particles appears safe in the present animal model.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available