4.5 Article

Drug-polymer interaction and its significance on the physical stability of nifedipine amorphous dispersion in microparticles of an ammonio methacrylate copolymer and ethylcellulose binary blend

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 97, 期 1, 页码 251-262

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1002/jps.21072

关键词

nifedipine; solid dispersion; microparticles; ethylcellulose; Eudragit RL; poorly water-soluble drug; controlled release; solid-state stability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using spectroscopic and thermal analysis, this study investigated drug-polymer interaction and its significance on the physical stability of drug amorphous dispersion in microparticles of an ammonio polymethacrylate copolymer (Eudragit RL (R)) (RL) and ethylcellulose (EC) binary blend (RL/EC=2:1 w/w) prepared for use in controlled release of poorly water-soluble drugs. Solid dispersion of the model drug, nifedipine in the microparticles could be described as an ideal amorphous mixture for drug loadings up to 11% w/w. The antiplasticizing effect of the polymer blend was indicated by a significant increase in the glass transition point from similar to 50 degrees C for the amorphous nifedipine to similar to 115 degrees C for its solid solution. Moreover, shifts in infrared vibration wavenumber of nifedipine carbonyl and amine groups suggested that the hydrogen bonds (H-bonds) originally formed among nifedipine molecules were broken and replaced by those formed between nifedipine and polymers in the microparticles. Further infrared analysis on nifedipine amorphous dispersions with a single polymer, namely RL or EC, confirmed the proposed hydrogen-bonding interactions; and their stability study results suggested that both antiplasticizing effects and hydrogen bonding of EC and RL with nifedipine might be. responsible for the physical stability of the microparticles of nifedipine amorphous dispersion with a RL/EC binary blend. (C) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association.

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

4.5
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