4.7 Article

Encapsulation of lipophilic drugs within enteric microparticles by a novel coacervation method

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 326, 期 1-2, 页码 128-138

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2006.07.013

关键词

coacervation; enteric polymer; lipophilic drugs; microencapsulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enteric microparticles were prepared by a novel microencapsulation method in order to improve the oral bioavailability of lipophilic drugs. This method involved the addition of an aqueous polymer solution to an organic enteric polymer solution containing lipophilic drugs. In contrast to classical coacervation microencapsulation methods, the drugs were initially also dissolved and not dispersed in the organic polymer solution. The hydrophilic polymer (hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) and Poloxamer 407) was dissolved in the aqueous phase and acted as a stabilizer for the coacervate droplets, preventing their coalescence and leading to the formation of enteric microparticles. The size of the enteric microparticles decreased with higher concentrations of the hydrophilic polymers, a higher pH of the aqueous polymer solution, a higher content of carboxyl groups of the enteric polymer and with better polymer solvents. Amide-containing lipophilic drugs, such as carbamazepine, lidocaine and cyclosporine A, were successfully encapsulated in the enteric microparticles in a non-crystalline state and were physically stable for 5 months. The high solubility of carbamazepine in the enteric polymer (> 30%, w/w), a high partition coefficient between polymer-rich/-poor regions and strong drug/polymer interactions contributed to the high drug encapsulation efficiency (90%, w/w). In contrast, carboxyl-containing drugs (indomethacin, ibuprofen) and hydroxyl-containing drug (17 beta-estradiol hemihydrate) crystallized inside or outside the polymeric matrix due to their low solubility in the enteric polymer. (c) 2006 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