4.5 Article

Improved Stability of Tuberculosis Drug Fixed-Dose Combination Using Isoniazid-Caffeic Acid and Vanillic Acid Cocrystal

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 107, 期 6, 页码 1667-1679

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2018.02.014

关键词

tuberculosis; fixed dose combination; isonicotinyl hydrazone; isoniazid; pyrazinamide; rifampicin; ethambutol dihydrochloride

资金

  1. JC Bose Fellowship [SR/S2/JCB-06/2009]
  2. CSIR [02/0223/15/EMR-II]
  3. SERB [EMR/2015/002075]
  4. UGC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The classic fixed-dose combination (FDC) of 4 tuberculosis drugs, namely rifampicin (RIF), isoniazid (INH), pyrazinamide (PZA), and ethambutol dihydrochloride (EDH) has the twin issues of physical stability and RIF cross-reaction in the 4-FDC. The major reason for these quality issues is the interaction between RIF and INH to yield isonicotinyl hydrazone in drug tablets. Pharmaceutical cocrystals of INH with caffeic acid (CFA) (PZA + EDH + RIF + INH-CFA cocrystal) and vanillic acid (VLA) (PZA + EDH + RIF + INH-VLA cocrystal) are able to stabilize the FDC formulation compared with the reference batch (PZA + EDH + RIF + INH). Stability studies under accelerated humidity and temperature stress conditions of 40 degrees C and 75% relative humidity showed that the physical stability of the cocrystal formulation was superior by powder X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy analysis, and chemical purity was analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography. Changes in the composition and structure were monitored on samples drawn at 7, 15, 22, and 30 days of storage. FDC-INH-CFA cocrystal batch exhibited greater stability compared with FDC-INH-VLA cocrystal and FDC reference drug batches. The superior stability of INH-CFA cocrystal is attributed to the presence of stronger hydrogen bonds and cyclic O-H center dot center dot center dot O synthon in the crystal structure. (c) 2018 American Pharmacists Association (R). Published by Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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