Department of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark; Faculty of Science and Engineering, Åbo Akademi University, Tykistökatu 6A, 20521 Turku, Finland.
Int J Pharm. 2019 Feb 25;557:366-373. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.12.036. Epub 2018 Dec 19.
We have previously developed a fast screening method on the ability of twenty amino acids (AA) to form co-amorphous formulations with six drugs upon ball milling. In this work, the potential advantages in physical stability and dissolution rate of the 36 successful co-amorphous formulations, compared to the pure amorphous drug, were further investigated. The physical stability of the formulations at dry conditions was assessed by X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD) and their thermal behavior by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). In addition, the intrinsic dissolution rate (IDR) of all formulations was determined in phosphate buffer (10 mM, pH 6.8). Finally, all the co-amorphous formulations were summarized into different groups, according to the outcome of the co-formability, physical stability and dissolution rate screenings, and guidelines could be drawn for selection of co-formers for a new given drug: (i) For acidic drugs, basic AAs (arginine, histidine, and lysine) are good co-formers with respect to the three critical quality attributes: co-formability, physical stability and dissolution. High glass transition temperatures (T), physical stability for 1-2 years, and accelerated IDR were observed. (ii) For basic and neutral drugs, non-polar AAs with aromatic groups such as tryptophan (TRP) and phenylalanine (PHE) should be explored as first choice. These combinations presented high Ts, which generally translated into good physical stability. The IDR of TRP- and PHE-based formulations were usually superior to the IDR of the pure amorphous drugs; (iii) Non-polar AAs with aliphatic structures such as leucine, isoleucine, methionine and valine did not provide an increase in T or IDR compared to the pure amorphous drug, and appear to be less feasible AAs for co-amorphous formulations.
我们之前开发了一种快速筛选方法,用于研究二十种氨基酸 (AA) 在球磨时与六种药物形成共无定形制剂的能力。在这项工作中,进一步研究了 36 种成功的共无定形制剂相对于纯无定形药物在物理稳定性和溶解速率方面的潜在优势。通过 X 射线粉末衍射 (XRPD) 评估了制剂在干燥条件下的物理稳定性,并通过差示扫描量热法 (DSC) 评估了其热行为。此外,还测定了所有制剂的固有溶解速率 (IDR) 在磷酸盐缓冲液 (10 mM,pH 6.8) 中。最后,根据共形成性、物理稳定性和溶解速率筛选的结果,将所有共无定形制剂总结为不同的组,并为新给定药物的共形成剂选择提供了指导原则:(i) 对于酸性药物,碱性 AA(精氨酸、组氨酸和赖氨酸)在三个关键质量属性方面是良好的共形成剂:共形成性、物理稳定性和溶解速率。观察到高玻璃化转变温度 (T)、1-2 年的物理稳定性和加速的 IDR。(ii) 对于碱性和中性药物,应探索具有芳香族基团的非极性 AA,如色氨酸 (TRP) 和苯丙氨酸 (PHE),作为首选。这些组合具有高 T 值,通常转化为良好的物理稳定性。TRP 和 PHE 基制剂的 IDR 通常优于纯无定形药物的 IDR;(iii) 与纯无定形药物相比,具有脂肪族结构的非极性 AA 如亮氨酸、异亮氨酸、蛋氨酸和缬氨酸不会增加 T 或 IDR,因此似乎不太适合用于共无定形制剂。