4.7 Article

Processing Impact on In Vitro and In Vivo Performance of Solid Dispersions-A Comparison between Hot-Melt Extrusion and Spray Drying

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13081307

关键词

amorphous solid dispersion; hot-melt extrusion; spray drying; dissolution; PK comparison

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effects of hot-melt extrusion and spray drying on drug bioperformance, finding significant differences in in vitro drug release rates of the amorphous solid dispersions produced by the two methods, while demonstrating similar in vivo performance based on cynomolgus monkey PK studies. Mechanistic understanding of the behaviors of the solid dispersions in vitro and in vivo was discussed.
Presently, a large number of drug molecules in development are BCS class II or IV compounds with poor aqueous solubility. Various novel solubilization techniques have been used to enhance drug solubility. Among them, amorphous solid dispersions (ASD), which convert a crystalline drug into an amorphous mixture of drug and polymer, have been demonstrated to be an effective tool in enhancing drug solubility and bioavailability. There are multiple ways to produce amorphous solid dispersions. The goal of the present study is to investigate two commonly used processing methods, hot-melt extrusion (HME) and spray drying, and their impact on drug bioperformance. The amorphous solid dispersions of a model compound, posaconazole (25% drug loading) in HPMCAS-MF, were successfully manufactured via the two processing routes, and the physicochemical properties, in vitro and in vivo performance of the resulting ASDs were characterized and compared. It was found that in vitro drug release of the ASDs from two-stage dissolution was significantly different. However, the two ASDs showed similar in vivo performance based on cynomolgus monkey PK studies. A mechanistic understanding of the in vitro and in vivo behaviors of the solid dispersions was discussed.

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