4.7 Article

Characterization and therapeutic efficacy evaluation of glimepiride and L-arginine co-amorphous formulation prepared by supercritical antisolvent process: Influence of molar ratio and preparation methods

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119232

关键词

Glimepiride; L-arginine; Co-amorphous; Supercritical antisolvent (SAS); Dissolution; Therapeutic efficacy

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science and ICT & Future Planning, Republic of Korea [NRF-2018R1A6A1A03023718]
  2. Basic Science Research Program [NRF-2019R1F1A1056350]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The glimepiride/L-arginine (GA) binary systems were prepared at various molar ratios by using a supercritical antisolvent (SAS) process. For comparison, the GA system was also prepared by physical mixing (PM), melt quenching (MQ), and solvent evaporation (SE) methods. Analyses by DSC and PXRD showed that only the GA binary mixture at 1:1 M ratio prepared by the SAS process was a pure co-amorphous mixture with an excellent content uniformity. On the other hand, GA mixture prepared by PM and SE were not pure co-amorphous systems and contained crystalline eutectic mixture, and MQ method at 170 degrees C induced the decrease in drug content due to decomposition of glimepiride. The positive deviation of experimentally measured glass transition temperature (T-g) compared to predicted T-g by the Gordon Taylor equation suggests specific molecular interactions between glimepiride and L-arginine in solid-state GA co-amorphous (GACA) mixture. The intermolecular interactions between glimepiride and L-arginine in GACA system were characterized by FT-IR and solid-state NMR analyses. Improved glimepiride dissolution rate of GACA formulation were confirmed using the solubility test, contact angle measurement, and dissolution test. Furthermore, the evaluation of pharmacodynamic hypoglycemic effect demonstrated that GACA prepared by the SAS process significantly improved the therapeutic efficacy of glimepiride.

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