Advertisement

Archives of Pharmacal Research

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 593–601 | Cite as

Quality by design: screening of critical variables and formulation optimization of Eudragit E nanoparticles containing dutasteride

  • Se-Jin Park
  • Gwang-Ho Choo
  • Sung-Joo Hwang
  • Min-Soo KimEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

The study was aimed at screening, understanding, and optimizing product variability of dutasteride-loaded Eudragit E nanoparticles prepared by solvent displacement using Plackett–Burman screening and a central composite design. The independent process and formulation factors selected included: drug loading (%), solute concentration (mg/mL), Soluplus concentration (mg/mL), injection rate (mL/min), organic solvent type (methanol or ethanol), stirring rate (rpm), and organic-to-aqueous phase volume ratio. Among these factors, solute concentration was associated with increased particle size, broad particle size distribution, and enhanced entrapment efficiency. On the other hand, Soluplus concentration played a role in decreasing particle size, narrowing particle size distribution, and reducing entrapment efficiency. Other formulation and process factors did not have a significant impact on nanoparticle properties, assuming they were within the limits used in this study. The optimized formulation was achieved with 20 mg/mL solute and 3.22 mg/mL Soluplus, and the observed responses were very close to the values predicted using the response surface methodology. The results clearly showed that quality by design concept could be effectively applied to optimize dutasteride-loaded Eudragit E nanoparticles.

Keywords

Dutasteride Eudragit E Nanoparticle Dissolution QbD Optimization 

References

  1. Baek, I.H., and M.S. Kim. 2012. Improved supersaturation and oral absorption of dutasteride by amorphous solid dispersions. Chemical & Pharmaceutical Bulletin 60: 1468–1473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck-Broichsitter, M., E. Rytting, T. Lebhardt, X. Wang, and T. Kissel. 2010. Preparation of nanoparticles by solvent displacement for drug delivery: A shift in the “ouzo region” upon drug loading. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 41: 244–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cha, K.-H., N. Lee, M.-S. Kim, J.-S. Kim, H.J. Park, J. Park, W. Cho, and S.-J. Hwang. 2010. Development and optimization of a novel sustained-release tablet formulation for bupropion hydrochloride using Box-Behnken design. Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation 40: 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chellampillai, B., and A.P. Pawar. 2011. Improved bioavailability of orally administered andrographolide from pH-sensitive nanoparticles. European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics 35: 123–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dai, J.D., T. Nagai, X.Q. Wang, T. Zhang, M. Meng, and Q. Zhang. 2004. pH-sensitive nanoparticles for improving the oral bioavailability of cyclosporine A. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 280: 229–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galindo-Rodriguez, S., E. Allémann, H. Fessi, and E. Doelker. 2004. Physicochemical parameters associated with nanoparticle formation in the salting-out, emulsification-diffusion, and nanoprecipitation methods. Pharmaceutical Research 21: 1428–1439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. GlaxoSmithKline. Avodart®: Product Monograph http://www.gsk.ca/english/docs-pdf/product-monographs/Avodart.pdf, cited 1 December, 2012.
  8. Hao, J., F. Wang, X. Wang, D. Zhang, Y. Bi, Y. Gao, X. Zhao, and Q. Zhang. 2012. Development and optimization of baicalin-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles prepared by coacervation method using central composite design. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 47: 497–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jin, S.J., Y.H. Yoo, M.S. Kim, J.S. Kim, J.S. Park, and S.J. Hwang. 2008. Paroxetine hydrochloride controlled release POLYOX matrix tablets: Screening of formulation variables using Plackett–Burman screening design. Archives of Pharmacal Research 31: 399–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Khachane, P., A.A. Date, and M.S. Nagarsenker. 2011. Eudragit EPO nanoparticles: Application in improving therapeutic efficacy and reducing ulcerogenicity of meloxicam on oral administration. Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology 7: 590–597.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lee, Y.-L., M.-S. Kim, M.-Y. Park, and K. Han. 2012. Quality by design: Understanding the formulation variables and optimization of metformin hydrochloride 750 mg sustained release tablet by Box-Behnken design. Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation 42: 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Legrand, P., S. Lesieur, A. Bochot, R. Gref, W. Raatjes, G. Barratt, and C. Vauthier. 2007. Influence of polymer behaviour in organic solution on the production of polylactide nanoparticles by nanoprecipitation. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 344: 33–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Linn, M., E.M. Collnot, D. Djuric, K. Hempel, E. Fabian, K. Kolter, and C.M. Lehr. 2012. Soluplus® as an effective absorption enhancer of poorly soluble drugs in vitro and in vivo. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 45: 336–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, M.-S., J.-S. Kim, Y.-H. You, H.J. Park, S. Lee, J.-S. Park, J.-S. Woo, and S.-J. Hwang. 2007. Development and optimization of a novel oral controlled delivery system for tamsulosin hydrochloride using response surface methodology. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 341: 97–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moinard-Checot, D., Y. Chevalier, S. Briancon, H. Fessi, and S. Guinebretiere. 2006. Nanoparticles for drug delivery: Review of the formulation and process difficulties illustrated by the emulsion-diffusion process. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 6: 2664–2681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Molpeceres, J., M. Guzman, M.R. Aberturas, M. Chacon, and L. Berges. 1996. Application of central composite designs to the preparation of polycaprolactone nanoparticles by solvent displacement. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 85: 206–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Myers, R.H., and D.C. Montgomery. 2002a. Response surface methodology: Process and product optimization using designed experiments, 321–342. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  18. Myers, R.H., and D.C. Montgomery. 2002b. Response surface methodology: Process and product optimization using designed experiments, 273–286. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Quintanar-Guerrero, D., E. Allémann, H. Fessi, and E. Doelker. 1999. Pseudolatex preparation using a novel emulsion-diffusion process involving direct displacement of partially water-miscible solvents by distillation. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 188: 155–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rahman, Z., A.S. Zidan, M.J. Habib, and M.A. Khan. 2010. Understanding the quality of protein loaded PLGA nanoparticles variability by Plackett–Burman design. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 389: 186–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Singh, B., R. Bhatowa, C.B. Tripathi, and R. Kapil. 2011. Developing micro-/nanoparticulate drug delivery systems using “design of experiments”. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation 1: 75–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tang, J., N. Xu, H. Ji, H. Liu, Z. Wang, and L. Wu. 2011. Eudragit nanoparticles containing genistein: Formulation, development, and bioavailability assessment. International Journal of Nanomedicine 6: 2429–2435.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Thorat, A.A., and S.V. Dalvi. 2012. Liquid antisolvent precipitation and stabilization of nanoparticles of poorly water soluble drugs in aqueous suspensions: Recent developments and future perspective. Chemical Engineering Journal 181–182: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. U.S. Food Drug Administration. Application Number: 21-319. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2001/21319_Duagen_biopharmr_P1.pdf, cited 25 September, 2012.
  25. Verma, S., V. Lan, R. Gokhale, and D.J. Burgess. 2009. Quality by design approach to understand the process of nanosuspension preparation. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 377: 185–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang, X.Q., and Q. Zhang. 2012. pH-sensitive polymeric nanoparticles to improve oral bioavailability of peptide/protein drugs and poorly water-soluble drugs. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics 82: 219–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wu, H., M. White, and M.A. Khan. 2011. Quality-by-Design (QbD): An integrated process analytical technology (PAT) approach for a dynamic pharmaceutical co-precipitation process characterization and process design space development. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 405: 63–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wu, T.H., F.L. Yen, L.T. Lin, T.R. Tsai, C.C. Lin, and T.M. Cham. 2008. Preparation, physicochemical characterization, and antioxidant effects of quercetin nanoparticles. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 346: 160–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Xu, X., M.A. Khan, and D.J. Burgess. 2011. A quality by design (QbD) case study on liposomes containing hydrophilic API: I. Formulation, processing design and risk assessment. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 419: 52–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Xu, X., M.A. Khan, and D.J. Burgess. 2012. A quality by design (QbD) case study on liposomes containing hydrophilic API: II. Screening of critical variables, and establishment of design space at laboratory scale. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 423: 543–553.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Pharmaceutical Society of Korea 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Se-Jin Park
    • 1
  • Gwang-Ho Choo
    • 1
  • Sung-Joo Hwang
    • 2
    • 3
  • Min-Soo Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical EngineeringInje UniversityGimhaeRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Yonsei Institute of Pharmaceutical SciencesYonsei UniversityIncheonRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.College of PharmacyYonsei UniversityIncheonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations