4.7 Article

PAMAM dendrimers as aerosol drug nanocarriers for pulmonary delivery via nebulization

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 461, 期 1-2, 页码 242-250

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.11.023

关键词

PAMAM dendrimers; Pulmonary; Beclometasone dipropionate; Nebulizer; Solubility

资金

  1. Egyptian Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polyamidoamine (PAMAM) dendrimers were evaluated as nanocarriers for pulmonary delivery of the model poorly soluble anti-asthma drug beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) using G3, G4 and G4(12) dendrimers. BDP-loaded dendrimers were characterized for drug solubility, in vitro drug release and aerosolization properties using three nebulizers: Pad LC Sprint (air-jet), Aeroneb Pro (actively vibratingmesh) and Omron MicroAir ( passively vibrating-mesh) nebulizers. Solubilization of BDP using dendrimers was increased by increasing the dendrimer generation and by using higher pH media. In vitro release studies showed that BDP when complexed with dendrimers exhibited a sustained release, and for all dendrimer formulations less than 35% of the drug was released after 8 h. Nebulization studies revealed that aerosol performance was dependent on nebulizer rather than dendrimer generation. Nebulization output values for the Pad (air-jet) and Aeroneb Pro (active mesh) nebulizers were in the range of 90-92% and 85-89% respectively compared to 57-63% for the Omron (passive mesh) nebulizer. The size of the droplets generated from the jet nebulizer was slightly smaller and aerosol polydispersity was lower compared to both mesh devices. The fine particle fraction (FPF) of the aerosols was in the following order: Pad (air-jet) > Aeroneb Pro (active mesh) > Omron (passive mesh). This study demonstrates that BDP-dendrimers have potential for pulmonary inhalation using air-jet and vibrating-mesh nebulizers. Moreover, the aerosol characteristics are influenced by nebulizer design rather than dendrimer generation. (C) 2013 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