AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 1063–1072 | Cite as

Characterisation of Ilomastat for Prolonged Ocular Drug Release

  • Gary Parkinson
  • Simon Gaisford
  • Qian Ru
  • Alastair Lockwood
  • Ashkan Khalili
  • Rose Sheridan
  • Peng T. Khaw
  • Steve Brocchini
  • Hala M. Fadda
Research Article


We are developing tablet dosage forms for implantation directly into the subconjunctival space of the eye. The matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor, ilomastat, has previously been shown to be efficacious at suppressing scarring following glaucoma filtration surgery (GFS). We report on the physical characterisation of ilomastat which is being developed for ocular implantation. Since ilomastat is being considered for implantation it is necessary to examine its polymorphs and their influence on aspects of the in vitro drug release profile. X-ray powder diffraction identified two polymorphs of ilomastat from different commercial batches of the compound. Tablets were prepared from the two different polymorphs. Isothermal perfusion calorimetry was used to show that amorphous content is not increased during tablet formulation. The melting points of the two polymorphs are 188 and 208°C as determined by differential scanning calorimetry. Utilising single crystal X-ray diffraction, the structural conformations and packing arrangements of the different polymorphs were determined. The orthorhombic crystal crystallised as a monohydrate while the second monoclinic crystal form is non-solvated. Ilomastat tablets prepared from the two different solid forms exhibited similar drug release profiles in vitro under conditions mimicking the aqueous composition, volume and flow of the subconjunctival space after GFS. This suggests that a reproducible dose at each time point during release after implantation should be achievable in vivo with ilomastat tablets prepared from the two polymorphs identified.


ocular drug delivery enantiotrope dissolution biorelevant media solid–solid transition 



This research was supported by the Freemasons Grand Charity and was also supported in part by the Medical Research Council Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme (G801650), The Dorothy Hodgkins DHPA Scheme, The Helen Hamlyn Trust in memory of Paul Hamlyn, Fight for Sight, Moorfields Special Trustees, the Michael and Ilse Katz Foundation and the National Institute for Health Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and the UCL Institute of Ophthalmology. The authors would like to thank Dr. Hardyal Gill for help with the HPLC method development of ilomastat. The scientific discussions with Dr. Aktham Aburub are gratefully acknowledged. The support and help of Mrs. Peggy Khaw in the preparation of this manuscript is much appreciated.


  1. 1.
    Pudipeddi M, Serajuddin ATM. Trends in solubility of polymorphs. J Pharm Sci. 2005;94(5):929–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Datta S, Grant DJW. Crystal structures of drugs: advances in determination, prediction and engineering. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3(1):42–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giron D, Goldbronn C, Mutz M, Pfeffer S, Piechon P, Schwab P. Solid state characterizations of pharmaceutical hydrates. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2002;68(2):453–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weinreb RN, Khaw PT. Primary open-angle glaucoma. Lancet. 2004;363(9422):1711–20. Epub 2004/05/26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reynolds AC, Skuta GL, Monlux R, Johnson J. Management of blebitis by members of the American Glaucoma Society: a survey. J Glaucoma. 2001;10(4):340–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parrish R, Minckler D. “Late endophthalmitis”—filtering surgery time bomb? Ophthalmology. 1996;103(8):1167–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Georgoulas S, Dahlmann-Noor A, Brocchini S, Khaw PT. Modulation of wound healing during and after glaucoma surgery. Glaucoma: an open window in to neurodegeneration and neuroprotection. Prog Brain Res. 2008;173:237–54.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wong TTL, Mead AL, Khaw PT. Matrix metalloproteinase inhibition modulates postoperative scarring after experimental glaucoma filtration surgery. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(3):1097–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wong TT, Mead AL, Khaw PT. Prolonged antiscarring effects of ilomastat and MMC after experimental glaucoma filtration surgery. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(6):2018–22. Epub 2005/05/26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Georgoulas S, Ru Q, Brocchini S, Khaw P. A novel single application prolonged release MMP inhibitor is superior to mitomycin in preventing scarring after experimental glaucoma surgery. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:A4538.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sheridan CM, Occleston NL, Hiscott P, Kon CH, Khaw PT, Grierson I. Matrix metalloproteinases: a role in the contraction of vitreo-retinal scar tissue. Am J Pathol. 2001;159(4):1555–66. Epub 2001/10/05.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Townley WA, Cambrey AD, Khaw PT, Grobbelaar AO. The role of an MMP inhibitor in the regulation of mechanical tension by Dupuytren’s disease fibroblasts. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2009;34(6):783–7. Epub 2009/09/30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brochhausen C, Schmitt VH, Rajab TK, Planck CN, Kramer B, Wallwiener M, et al. Intraperitoneal adhesions—an ongoing challenge between biomedical engineering and the life sciences. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2011;98(1):143–56. Epub 2011/05/07.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McLaren JW. Measurement of aqueous humor flow. Exp Eye Res. 2009;88(4):641–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Altomare A, Cascarano G, Giacovazzo C, Guagliardi A. Completion and refinement of crystal-structures with Sir92. J Appl Crystallogr. 1993;26:343–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheldrick GM, Schneider TR. SHELXL: high-resolution refinement. Macromol Crystallogr Part B. 1997;277:319–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kawasaki S, Mizoue S, Yamaguchi M, Shiraishi A, Zheng X, Hayashi Y, et al. Evaluation of filtering bleb function by thermography. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(10):1331–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mackin L, Zanon R, Park JM, Foster K, Opalenik H, Demonte M. Quantification of low levels (<10%) of amorphous content in micronised active batches using dynamic vapour sorption and isothermal microcalorimetry. Int J Pharm. 2002;231(2):227–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gaisford S, Dennison M, Tawfik M, Jones MD. Following mechanical activation of salbutamol sulphate during ball-milling with isothermal calorimetry. Int J Pharm. 2010;393(1–2):74–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vippagunta SR, Brittain HG, Grant DJW. Crystalline solids. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;48(1):3–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Newman AW, Reutzel-Edens SM, Zografi G. Characterization of the “Hygroscopic” properties of active pharmaceutical ingredients. J Pharm Sci. 2008;97(3):1047–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barbas R, Marti F, Prohens R, Puigjaner C. Polymorphism of norfloxacin: evidence of the enantiotropic relationship between polymorphs A and B. Cryst Growth Des. 2006;6(6):1463–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fadda HM, Sousa T, Carlsson AS, Abrahamsson B, Williams JC, Kumar D, et al. Drug solubility in luminal fluids from different regions of the small and large intestine of humans. Mol Pharm. 2010;7(5):1527–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fadda HM, Basit AW. Dissolution of pH responsive formulations in media resembling intestinal fluids: bicarbonate versus phosphate buffers. J Drug Deliv Sci Tech. 2005;15(4):273–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mooney KG, Mintun MA, Himmelstein KJ, Stella VJ. Dissolution kinetics of carboxylic acids II: effect of buffers. J Pharm Sci. 1981;70(1):22–32. Epub 1981/01/01.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Daniels JT, Cambrey AD, Occleston NL, Garrett Q, Tarnuzzer RW, Schultz GS, et al. Matrix metalloproteinase inhibition modulates fibroblast-mediated matrix contraction and collagen production in vitro. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(3):1104–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fisher JF, Mobashery S. Recent advances in MMP inhibitor design. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2006;25(1):115–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aguiar AJ, Krc J, Kinkel AW, Samyn JC. Effect of polymorphism on absorption of chloramphenicol from chloramphenicol palmitate. J Pharm Sci. 1967;56(7):847–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aguiar AJ, Zelmer JE. Dissolution behavior of polymorphs of chloramphenicol palmitate and mefenamic acid. J Pharm Sci. 1969;58(8):983–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khalafallah N, Khalil SA, Moustafa MA. Bioavailability determination of 2 crystal forms of sulfameter in humans from urinary-excretion data. J Pharm Sci. 1974;63(6):861–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary Parkinson
    • 1
  • Simon Gaisford
    • 1
  • Qian Ru
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alastair Lockwood
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ashkan Khalili
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rose Sheridan
    • 3
  • Peng T. Khaw
    • 2
  • Steve Brocchini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hala M. Fadda
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.UCL School of PharmacyLondonUK
  2. 2.NIHR Biomedical Research CentreMoorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of OphthalmologyLondonUK
  3. 3.Translational Research Office, UCLLondonUK
  4. 4.Present address: Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy and Health SciencesButler UniversityIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations