4.5 Article

Amorphous Solid Dispersion of Meloxicam Enhanced Oral Absorption in Rats With Impaired Gastric Motility

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 107, 期 1, 页码 446-452

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2017.05.023

关键词

amorphous; drug-excipient interaction; gastrointestinal transit; oral absorption; poorly water-soluble drugs; solid dispersion

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [24590200]
  2. Takeda Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Meloxicam (MEL) shows a slow onset of action in severe pain patients on account of delayed gastric motility. This study aimed to develop an amorphous solid dispersion (ASD) of MEL to achieve rapid oral absorption in severe pain patients. ASD formulations of MEL with hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (ASDMEL/ HPMC) and polyacrylates and polymethacrylates (ASD-MEL/EUD) were prepared and physicochemically characterized. Oral absorption behavior of MEL samples was also clarified in both normal and propantheline (PPT)-pretreated rats with impaired gastric motility. MEL in the formulations was amorphous, and ASD formulations of MEL exhibited high dissolution behavior in acidic solution. After oral administration of crystalline MEL (1 mg-MEL/kg), a 69% reduction in AUC0-4 was observed between normal and PPT-pretreated rats. For orally dosed ASD-MEL/HPMC (1 mg-MEL/kg), there were approximately 9-and 12-fold increases of AUC0-4 in normal and PPT-pretreated rats, respectively, in comparison with crystalline MEL (1 mg-MEL/kg). However, the oral absorption behavior of ASD-MEL/EUD (1 mgMEL/ kg) was low and similar to that of crystalline MEL. The infrared spectroscopic study revealed potent interactions between MEL and EUD, possibly leading to marked attenuation of MEL absorption. This ASD approach might provide rapid oral absorption of MEL in severe pain patients, possibly leading to better clinical outcomes. (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