Advertisement

The AAPS Journal

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 400–409 | Cite as

Effects of Device and Formulation on In Vitro Performance of Dry Powder Inhalers

  • Wallace P. Adams
  • Sau L. Lee
  • Robert Plourde
  • Robert A. Lionberger
  • Craig M. Bertha
  • William H. Doub
  • Jean-Marc Bovet
  • Anthony J. Hickey
Research Article

Abstract

The study examined the sensitivity of DPI in vitro performance to formulation and device changes. Rotahaler/Rotacaps was selected as the reference DPI drug product, and Aerolizer was selected as the test device. Since the test device was recognized to have much greater efficiency of dispersion, simple modifications to both formulation and device were made in an effort to provide a closer match to the in vitro performance of the reference product. The modifications included varying the drug and lactose particle sizes and/or lactose fine particle content in the test formulations, as well as lowering the specific resistance of the test device. These modifications were intended to address variables important for drug product performance for a defined experimental design and were not intended to mimic the extensive formulation and device design strategies that are employed in an industrial setting. Formulation and device modifications resulted in a modified test product that approached the reference product in the in vitro performance.

KEY WORDS

device modifications dry powder inhaler formulation generic in vitro performance 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Maureen Stewart, Visual Information Specialist, CDER, FDA, Silver Spring, MD, for preparing the illustrations of the two Modified Aerolizers.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Protection of stratospheric ozone; labeling. Fed Regist. 1993;58:8136–69.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Use of ozone-depleting substances; essential use determinations. Fed Regist. 1999;64:47719–41.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee SL, Adams WP, Li BV, Conner DP, Chowdhury BA, Yu LX. In vitro considerations to support bioequivalence of locally acting drugs in dry powder inhalers for lung diseases. AAPS J. 2009;11:414–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fults KA, Miller IF, Hickey AJ. Effect of particle morphology on emitted dose of fatty acid-treated disodium cromoglycate powder aerosols. Pharm Dev Technol. 1997;2:67–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunbar CA, Hickey AJ, Holzner P. Dispersion and characterization of pharmaceutical dry powder aerosols. Kona. 1998;16:7–45.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gonda I. Targeting by deposition. In: Hickey AJ, editor. Pharmaceutical inhalation aerosol technology. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004. p. 65–88.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Telko MJ, Hickey AJ. Dry powder inhaler formulation. Respir Care. 2005;50:1209–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Donovan MJ, Smyth HD. Influence of size and surface roughness of large lactose carrier particles in dry powder inhaler formulations. Int J Pharm. 2010;402:1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guenette E, Barrett A, Kraus D, Brody R, Harding L, Magee G. Understanding the effect of lactose particle size on the properties of DPI formulations using experimental design. Int J Pharm. 2009;380:80–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    USP Advisory Panel on Aerosols. Recommendations of the USP advisory panel on aerosols on the USP general chapters on aerosols <601> and uniformity of dosage units <905> Pharm Forum. 1994;20:7477–503.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frijlink HW, De Boer AH. Dry powder inhalers for pulmonary drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2004;1:67–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clark AR, Hollingworth AM. The relationship between powder inhaler resistance and peak inspiratory conditions in healthy volunteers—implications for in vitro testing. J Aerosol Med. 1993;6:99–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin GP, Zeng XM, Tee SK, Abu Ghoush A, Marriott C. Effects of particle size and adding sequence of fine lactose on the deposition of salbutamol sulphate from a dry powder formulation. Int J Pharm. 1999;182:133–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Menzeleev R, Bovet J-M, Hickey AJ. Unit dose level particle size distribution characterization of inhalation products: a new analytical approach using LC-MSD as a platform. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Suman JD, Farr SL, editors. Respiratory drug delivery IX. River Grove: Davis Healthcare International Publishing; 2004. p. 453–6.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    <601> Aerosols. Metered-dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers, data analysis. Rockville: U.S. Pharmacopeia 31/National Formulary 26, United States Pharmacopeial Convention; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berg RL, Svensson JO, Asking L. MMAD based on dose to impactor rather than on delivered dose. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Farr SL, editors. Respiratory drug delivery VIII. Godalming: Davis Horwood International; 2002. p. 339–42.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    <601> Aerosols. Metered-dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers, sampling the delivered dose from dry powder inhalers. Rockville: U.S. Pharmacopeia 31/National Formulary 26, United States Pharmacopeial Convention; 2008.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saleem I, Smyth H, Telko M. Prediction of dry powder inhaler formulation performance from surface energetics and blending dynamics. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2008;34:1002–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hindle M, Byron PR. Dose emissions from marketed dry powder inhalers. Int J Pharm. 1995;116:169–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Byron PR. Drug delivery devices: issues in drug development. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2004;1:321–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chew NYK, Chan HK. In vitro aerosol performance and dose uniformity between the Foradile (R) Aerolizer (R) and the Oxis (R) Turbuhaler (R). J Aerosol Med. 2001;14:495–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bridson RH, Robbins PT, Chen Y, Westerman D, Gillham CR, Roche TC, et al. The effects of high shear blending on alpha-lactose monohydrate. Int J Pharm. 2007;339:84–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jones MD, Hooton JC, Dawson ML, Ferrie AR, Price R. An investigation into the dispersion mechanisms of ternary dry powder inhaler formulations by the quantification of interparticulate forces. Pharm Res. 2008;25:337–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shur J, Harris H, Jones MD, Kaerger JS, Price R. The role of fines in the modification of the fluidization and dispersion mechanism within dry powder inhaler formulations. Pharm Res. 2008;25:1931–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Louey MD, Van Oort M, Hickey AJ. Aerosol dispersion of respirable particles in narrow size distributions produced by jet-milling and spray-drying techniques. Pharm Res. 2004;21:1200–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coates MS, Chan HK, Fletcher DF, Raper JA. Influence of air flow on the performance of a dry powder inhaler using computational and experimental analyses. Pharm Res. 2005;22:1445–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coates MS, Chan HK, Fletcher DF, Raper JA. Effect of design on the performance of a dry powder inhaler using computational fluid dynamics. Part 2: air inlet size. J Pharm Sci. 2006;95:1382–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coates MS, Fletcher DF, Chan HK, Raper JA. Effect of design on the performance of a dry powder inhaler using computational fluid dynamics. Part 1: grid structure and mouthpiece length. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93:2863–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Coates MS, Fletcher DF, Chan HK, Raper JA. The role of capsule on the performance of a dry powder inhaler using computational and experimental analyses. Pharm Res. 2005;22:923–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wallace P. Adams
    • 1
  • Sau L. Lee
    • 2
  • Robert Plourde
    • 3
  • Robert A. Lionberger
    • 2
  • Craig M. Bertha
    • 4
  • William H. Doub
    • 5
  • Jean-Marc Bovet
    • 6
  • Anthony J. Hickey
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.BrookevilleUSA
  2. 2.Food and Drug AdministrationCDER/OPS/Office of Generic DrugsRockvilleUSA
  3. 3.Catalent Pharma SolutionsMorrisvilleUSA
  4. 4.Food and Drug AdministrationCDER/OPS/Office of New Drug Quality AssessmentSilver SpringUSA
  5. 5.Food and Drug AdministrationCDER/OPS/Division of Pharmaceutical AnalysisSt. LouisUSA
  6. 6.Cirrus PharmaceuticalsInc., Research Triangle ParkDurhamUSA
  7. 7.Research Triangle InstituteNorth CarolinaUSA

Personalised recommendations