4.7 Article

A comparison between spray drying and spray freeze drying for dry powder inhaler formulation of drug-loaded lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 424, 期 1-2, 页码 98-106

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2011.12.045

关键词

Spray drying; Spray freeze drying; Hybrid nanoparticles; Dry powder inhaler; Leucine

资金

  1. Ministry of Education of Singapore AcRF [RG 76/10]
  2. Nanyang Technological University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles - polymeric nanoparticles enveloped by lipid layers - have emerged as a potent therapeutic nano-carrier alternative to liposomes and polymeric nanoparticles. Herein we perform comparative studies of employing spray drying (SD) and spray freeze drying (SFD) to produce inhalable dry-powder form of drug-loaded lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles. Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), lecithin, and levofloxacin are employed as the polymer, lipid, and drug models, respectively. The hybrid nanoparticles are transformed into micro-scale nanoparticle aggregates (or nano-aggregates) via SD and SED, where the effects of (1) different excipients (i.e. mannitol, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and leucine), and (2) nanoparticle to excipient ratio on nano-aggregate characteristics (e.g. size, flowability, aqueous reconstitution, aerosolization efficiency) are examined. In both methods, PVA is found more effective than mannitol for aqueous reconstitution, whereas hydrophobic leucineis needed to achieve effective aerosolization as it reduces nano-aggregate agglomeration. Using PVA, both methods are equally capable of producing nano-aggregates having size, density, flowability, yield and reconstitutibility in the range ideal for inhaled delivery. Nevertheless, nano-aggregates produced by SFD are superior to SD in terms of their aerosolization efficiency manifested in the higher emitted dose and fine particle fraction with lower mass median aerodynamic diameter. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据