4.4 Article

Extended Release Felodipine Self-Nanoemulsifying System

期刊

AAPS PHARMSCITECH
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 515-523

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1208/s12249-009-9235-0

关键词

extended release; felodipine; gelucire 43/01; self-nanoemulsifying system

资金

  1. CSIR, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of the present study was to formulate a self-nanoemulsifying system (SNES) containing model lipophilic drug, felodipine (FLD), to improve its solubility. The SNES was formulated using varying amounts of MiglyolA (R) 840 (as an oil), CremophorA (R) EL (as a surfactant), and CapmulA (R) MCM (as a co-surfactant). The SNES were characterized for turbidity, droplet size and in vitro FLD release. The SNES containing oil, surfactant, and co-surfactant in the weight ratio of 3.5:1.0:1.0, respectively, showed good emulsification, median droplet size of 421 nm, and rapid FLD release (> 90% release in 15 min). Gelling was induced in the SNES by addition of AerosilA (R) 200 (A 200). Rheological studies clearly demonstrated the formation of gelled microstructure with enhanced elasticity for SNES with A 200. Since FLD warrants extended delivery for management of hypertension, the gelled SNES was further encased within the hydrophobic GelucireA (R) 43/01 (GEL) coat to extend the release of FLD. CaprolA (R) PGE-860 (CAP) was added to this coat as a release enhancer. No interaction was seen between GEL and CAP in differential scanning calorimetry. The effect of two formulation variables in the encased SNES, viz., the gelling agent (A200) and the release enhancer (CAP), on the in vitro FLD release was evaluated using 3(2) factorial design experiments. CAP by virtue of channel formation in GEL coat favored the FLD release, while the A200 retarded the FLD release by inducing gelling. At later time points, an interaction between these two variables was found to govern extended release of FLD. The developed gelled SNES encased within the GEL coat can be used as an extended release composition for lipophilic drugs.

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

4.4
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