4.7 Article

Effects of the type of release medium on drug release from PLIGA-based microparticles: Experiment and theory

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 314, 期 2, 页码 189-197

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2005.07.030

关键词

microparticle; controlled release; PLGA; release medium; modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The major objectives of the present study were: (i) to prepare 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-loaded, poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA)-based microparticles, which can be used for the treatment of brain tumors, (ii) to study the effects of the type of release medium on the resulting drug release kinetics, and (iii) to get further insight into the underlying drug release mechanisms. Spherical microparticles were prepared by a solvent extraction method and characterized using different techniques, including size exclusion chromatography (SEC), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and particle size analysis before and upon exposure to various release media. Interestingly, very different drug release patterns (including mono-, bi- and tri-phasic ones) were observed, depending on the pH, osmolarity and temperature of the release medium. An adequate mathematical theory was used to quantitatively describe the experimentally measured 5-FU release patterns. The model considers the limited solubility of the drug, polymer degradation as well as drug diffusion and allowed to determine system and release medium specific parameters, such as the diffusion coefficient of the drug. In particular, the pH and temperature of the release medium were found to be of major importance for the resulting release patterns. Based on the obtained knowledge the selection of an appropriate release medium for in vitro tests simulating in vivo conditions can be facilitated, and stress tests can be developed allowing to get rapid feedback on the release characteristics of a specific batch. (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