4.5 Article

Effects of Dissolution Medium pH and Simulated Gastrointestinal Contraction on Drug Release From Nifedipine Extended-Release Tablets

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 108, 期 3, 页码 1189-1194

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2018.10.014

关键词

dissolution; controlled release; osmotic pump(s); gastrointestinal tract; US Pharmacopeia (USP); polymeric drug delivery system(s); physiological model(s); pH; oral drug delivery; in vitro model(s)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In contrast to nifedipine matrix-based extended-release dosage forms, the osmotic pump drug delivery systems have a zero-order drug release independent of external variables such as pH, agitation rate, and dissolution media. The objective of this study focuses on the in vitro evaluation of the mechanical properties of osmotic pump and polymer matrix-based formulations in dissolution media, and the potential impacts that media pH and simulated gastrointestinal contraction have on drug release. Two strengths of osmotic pump product A and polymer matrix-based product B were used in this study. An in-house system was developed with the capability of applying mechanical compression and monitoring mechanical properties of sample during dissolution testing. A United States Pharmacopeia or an in-house apparatus was used for dissolution testing under various conditions. Compared to the product A, the mechanical properties of the product B change significantly at various pHs and mechanical compressions. The results suggest that polymer matrix-based products bear a risk of formulation-related interactions with the gastrointestinal tract during in vivo drug dissolution, especially in the case of concomitant pH and gastric contractile changes. Modified dissolution testing devices may help formulation scientists in product development and provide regulatory agencies with an additional metric for quality assurance of drug products. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of 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