4.7 Article

A Comparative Study between A Protein Based Amorphous Formulation and Other Dissolution Rate Enhancing Approaches: A Case Study with Rifaximin

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15010126

关键词

amorphous solid dispersion; beta-lactoglobulin; polymer; dissolution; nanocrystal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the feasibility of using proteins as co-formers in amorphous solid dispersions (ASDs) with traditional synthetic polymers and a nanocrystalline formulation. The whey protein beta-lactoglobulin (BLG) demonstrated the highest glass transition temperature and improved dissolution rate and drug solubility compared to the polymer-based ASD systems and the nanocrystalline formulation.
Amorphous solid dispersions (ASDs) based on proteins as co-formers have previously shown promising potential to improve the solubility and bioavailability of poorly water-soluble drugs. In particular, whey proteins have shown to be promising co-formers and amorphous stabilizers in ASD formulations, including at high drug loading. In this study, the feasibility of the whey protein beta-lactoglobulin (BLG) as a co-former in ASDs was compared to the more traditional ASD co-formers based on synthetic polymers (hydroxypropyl methylcellulose acetate succinate and Eudragit((R)) L) as well as to a nanocrystalline formulation. The poorly water-soluble drug rifaximin (RFX) was chosen as the model drug. All drug/co-former formulations were prepared as fully amorphous ASDs by spray drying at 50% (w/w) drug loading. The BLG-based ASD had the highest glass transition temperature and showed a faster dissolution rate and higher drug solubility in three release media with different pH values (1.2, 4.5, and 6.5) compared to the polymer-based ASDs and the nanocrystalline RFX. In conclusion, BLG is a promising co-former and amorphous stabilizer of RFX in ASD formulations, superior to the selected polymer-based ASD systems or the nanocrystalline formulation.

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