4.7 Article

Development of a novel dry powder inhalation formulation for the delivery of rivastigmine hydrogen tartrate

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 501, 期 1-2, 页码 124-138

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2016.01.066

关键词

Dry powder inhaler; Particle engineering; Spray drying; L-Leucine; Rivastigmine hydrogen tartrate

资金

  1. FAPERJ (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
  2. CAPES (Brasilia, Brazil) [3372/13-8]
  3. Science Foundation Ireland [12/RC/2275]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to prepare engineered particles of rivastigmine hydrogen tartrate (RHT) and to characterize the physicochemical and aerodynamic properties, in comparison to a lactose carrier formulation (LCF). Microparticles were prepared from ethanol/water solutions containing RHT with and without the incorporation of L-leucine (Leu), using a spray dryer. Dry powder inhaler formulations prepared were characterized by scanning electron microscopy, powder X-ray diffraction, laser diffraction particle sizing, ATR-FTIR, differential scanning calorimetry, bulk and tapped density, dynamic vapour sorption and in vitro aerosol deposition behaviour using a next generation impactor. The smooth-surfaced spherical morphology of the spray dried microparticles was altered by adding Leu, resulting in particles becoming increasingly wrinkled with increasing Leu. Powders presented low densities. The glass transition temperature was sufficiently high (>90 degrees C) to suggest good stability at room temperature. As Leu content increased, spray dried powders presented lower residual solvent content, lower particle size, higher fine particle fraction (FPF < 5 mu m), and lower mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD). The LCF showed a lower FPF and higher MMAD, relative to the spray dried formulations containing more than 10% Leu. Spray dried RHT powders presented better aerodynamic properties, constituting a potential drug delivery system for oral inhalation. (C) 2016 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