Advertisement

American Journal of Drug Delivery

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 17–28 | Cite as

Coating of multiparticulates for sustained release

  • Elaine S. K. Tang
  • L. W. Chan
  • Paul W. S. Heng
Review Article

Abstract

Multiparticulates are discrete particles that make up a multiple-unit system. They provide many advantages over single-unit systems because of their small size. Studies have shown that multiparticulates are less dependent on gastric emptying, resulting in less inter- and intra-subject variability in gastrointestinal transit time. They are also better distributed and less likely to cause local irritation. The drug dose in a multiple-unit system is divided over the multiparticulates that make up that system. As such, failure of a few units may not be as consequential as failure of a single-unit system.

Multiparticulates may be prepared by several methods. Different methods require different processing conditions and produce multiparticulates of distinct qualities. Some of these methods may be broadly classified as pelletization, granulation, spray drying, and spray congealing. Drug particles may be entrapped within the multiparticulates or layered around them. Subsequently, these multiparticulates may be modified in many ways to achieve the desired drug-release profile.

One approach to the modification of drug-release profiles in multiparticulates is to coat them. Reasons for the application of coating onto multiparticulates are to obtain functional coats, provide chemical stability, improve physical characteristics, and enhance patient acceptance. Coats are formed from various polymeric coating materials broadly classified as aqueous polymer dispersions, polymer solutions, molten polymers, and dry powders. Depending on the type of coating material used, functions such as sustained release (SR), targeted release, delayed release, and pulsatile release can be achieved. The focus of this review is on SR coating.

The most common method used for the application of coating onto multiparticulates is air suspension coating. Other methods include compression coating, solvent evaporation, coacervation, and interfacial complexation. It is also possible to form coated microparticles by spray drying and spray congealing.

A major part of this review is focused on factors affecting the coating of multiparticulates and drug-release characteristics from SR coated multiparticulates. Knowledge of these factors is important in the development of SR coated multiparticulates because control of these factors ensures consistency of drug release between batches of multiparticulates. These factors may be classified into four groups: characteristics of cores, characteristics of SR coats, coating equipment, and coating process conditions.

Keywords

Drug Release Sustained Release Polymer Particle Hypromellose Coating Chamber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the National University of Singapore and GEANUS Pharmaceutical Processing Research Laboratory for supporting their work as well as everyone who has contributed towards our research effort.

References

  1. 1.
    Collett J, Moreton C. Modified-release peroral dosage forms. In: Aulton ME, editor. Pharmaceutics: the science of dosage form design. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2001: 289–305Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hogan J. Coating of tablets and multiparticulates. In: Aulton ME, editor. Pharmaceutics: the science of dosage form design. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2001: 441–8Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Porter SC, Bruno CH. Coating of pharmaceutical solid-dosage forms. In: Lieberman HA, Lachman L, Schwartz JB, editors. Pharmaceutical dosage forms, tablets. New York: Dekker, 1990: 77–159Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bechgaard H, Nielsen GH. Controlled-release multiple-units and single-unit doses. Drag Dev Ind Pharm 1978; 4: 53–67Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abrahamsson B, Alpsten M, Jonsson UE, et al. Gastro-intestinal transit of a multiple-unit formulation (metoprolol CR/ZOK) and a non-disintegrating tablet with the emphasis on colon. Int J Pharm 1996; 140: 229–35Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dechesne JP, Delattre L. A new enteric tablet of acetylsalicylic acid: II. Biopharmaceutical aspects. Int J Pharm 1986; 34: 259–62Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cole GC. Introduction and overview of pharmaceutical coating. In: Cole G, editor. Pharmaceutical coating technology. London: Taylor & Francis, 1995: 1–5Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horvath E, Ormos Z. Film coating of dragee seeds by fluidized bed spraying methods. Acta Pharm Technol 1989; 35(2): 90–6Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lehmann K. Coating of multiparticulates using polymeric solutions: formulation and process considerations. In: Ghebre-Sellasie I, editor. Multiparticulate oral drug delivery. New York: Dekker, 1994: 51–78Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fukumori Y. Coating of multiparticulates using polymeric dispersions. In: Ghebre-Sellasie I, editor. Multiparticulate oral drug delivery. New York: Dekker, 1994: 79–112Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones DM, Percel PJ. Coating of multiparticulates using molten materials: formulation and process considerations. In: Ghebre-Sellasie I, editor. Multiparticulate oral drug delivery. New York: Dekker, 1994: 113–142Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Obara S, Marayama N, Nishiyama Y, et al. Dry coating: an innovative enteric coating method using a cellulose derivative. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 1999; 47: 51–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pearnchob N, Bodmeier R. Coating of pellets with micronized ethylcellulose particles by a dry powder coating technique. Int J Pharm 2003; 268: 1–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pearnchob N, Bodmeier R. Dry polymer powder coating and comparison with conventional liquid-based coatings for Eudragit® RS, ethylcellulose and shellac. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2003; 56: 363–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ichikawa H, Fujioka K, Christianah A, et al. Use of ion-exchange resins to prepare 100 μm-sized microcapsules with prolonged drug-release by the Wurster process. Int J Pharm 2001; 216: 67–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yamada T, Onishi H, Machida Y. Sustained release ketoprofen microparticles with ethylcellulose and carboxymethylethylcellulose. J Control Release 2001; 75: 271–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shi XY, Tan TW. Preparation of chitosan/ethylcellulose complex microcapsule and its application in controlled release of Vitamin D2. Biomaterials 2002; 23: 4469–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chambliss WG. Conventional and specialized coating pans. In: Ghebre-Sellasie I, editor. Pharmaceutical pelletization technology. New York: Dekker, 1989: 15–38Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iyer RM, Augsburger LL, Parikh DM. Evaluation of drug layering and coating: effect of process mode and binder level. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1993; 19: 981–98Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nesbitt RU. Effect of formulation components on drug release from multiparticulates. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1994; 20: 3207–36Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tunon A, Grasjo J, Alderbom G. Effect of intragranular porosity on compression behaviour of and drug release from reservoir pellets. Eur J Pharm Sci 2003; 19: 333–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keleb EI, Vermeire A, Vervaet C, et al. Continuous twin screw extrusion for the wet granulation of lactose. Int J Pharm 2002; 239: 69–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ichikawa H, Fukumori Y. Microagglomeration of pulverized pharmaceutical powders using the Wurster process I. Preparation of highly drug incorporated, subsieve-sized core particles for subsequent microencapsulation by film coating. Int J Pharm 1999; 180: 195–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gao JZH, Jain A, Motheram R, et al. Fluid bed granulation of a poorly water soluble, low density, micronized drug: comparison with high shear granulation. Int J Pharm 2002; 237: 1–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Link KC, Schlunder EU. Fluidized bed spray granulation: investigation of the coating process on a single sphere. Chem Eng Process 1997; 36: 443–57Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oulahna D, Cordier F, Galet L, et al. Wet granulation: the effect of shear on granule properties. Pow Tech 2003; 130: 238–46Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cavallari C, Abertini B, Gonzalez-Rodriguez ML, et al. Improved dissolution behaviour of steam-granulated piroxicam. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2002; 54: 65–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rodriguez L, Cavallari C, Passerini N, et al. Preparation and characterization by morphological analysis of diclofenac/PEG 4000 granules obtained using three different techniques. Int J Pharm 2002; 242: 285–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Riepma KA, Vromans H, Zuurman K, et al. The effect of dry granulation on the consolidation and compaction of crystalline lactose. Int J Pharm 1993; 97: 29–38Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Inghelbrecht S, Remon JP. The roller compaction of different types of lactose. Int J Pharm 1998; 166: 135–44Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bultmann JM. Multiple compaction of microcrystalline cellulose in a roller compactor. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2002; 54: 59–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Takano K, Nishii K, Mukoyama A, et al. Binderless granulation of pharmaceutical lactose powders. Pow Tech 2002; 122: 212–21Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Horio M. Binderless granulation: its potential, achievements and future issues. Pow Tech 2003; 130: 1–7Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Passerini N, Albertini B, Gonzalez-Rodriguez ML, et al. Preparation and characterisation of ibuprofen-poloxamer 188 granules obtained by melt granulation. Eur J Pharm Sci 2002; 15: 71–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Perissutti B, Rubessa F, Moneghini M, et al. Formulation design of carbamazepine fast-release tablets prepared by melt granulation technique. Int J Pharm 2003; 256: 53–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Murakami H, Yoneyama T, Nakajima K, et al. Correlation between loose density and compactibility of granules prepared by various granulation methods. Int J Pharm 2001; 216: 159–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ghebre-Sellassie I. Pellets: a general overview. In: Ghebre-Sellasie I, editor. Pharmaceutical pelletization technology. New York: Dekker, 1989: 1–13Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Berggren J, Frenning G, Alderborn G. Compression behaviour and tablet-forming ability of spray-dried amorphous composite particles. Eur J Pharm Sci 2004; 22: 191–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang L, Chaw CS, Yang YY, et al. Preparation, characterization, and in vitro evaluation of physostigmine-loaded poly(ortho ester) and poly(ortho ester)/poly(D.L.-lactide-co-glycolide) blend microspheres fabricated by spray drying. Biomaterial 2004; 25: 3275–82Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tobio M, Schwendeman SP, Guo Y, et al. Improved immunogenicity of a core-coated tetanus toxoid delivery system. Vaccine 2000; 18: 618–22Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Emås M, Nyqvist H. Methods of studying aging and stabilization of spray-congealed solid dispersions with carnauba wax: 1. Microcalorimetric investigation. Int J Pharm 2002; 197: 117–27Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fini A, Rodriguez L, Cavallari C, et al. Ultrasound-compacted and spray-congealed indomethacin/polyethyleneglycol systems. Int J Pharm 2002; 247: 11–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Passerini N, Perissutti B, Albertini B, et al. Controlled release of verapamil hydrochloride from waxy microparticles prepared by spray congealing. J Control Release 2003; 88: 263–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sun YM, Chang CC, Huang WF, et al. Fluidized-bed spray coated porous hydrogel beads for sustained release of diclofenac sodium. J Control Release 1997; 47: 247–60Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Williams RO, Liu J. Influence of processing and curing conditions on beads coated with an aqueous dispersion of cellulose acetate phthalate. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2000; 49: 243–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shivanand P, Sprockel OL. A controlled porosity drug delivery system. Int J Pharm 1998; 167: 83–96Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lee BJ, Min GH. Oral controlled release of melatonin using polymer-reinforced and coated alginate beads. Int J Pharm 1996; 144: 37–46Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wieland-Berghausen S, Schote U, Frey M, et al. Comparison of microencapsulation techniques for the water-soluble drugs nitenpyram and clomipramine HC1. J Control Release 2002; 85: 35–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sriamornsak P, Puttipipatkhachorn S, Prakongpan S. Calcium pectinate gel coated pellets as an alternative carrier to calcium pectinate beads. Int J Pharm 1997; 156: 189–94Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kristmundsdottir T, Gudmundsson OS, Ingvarsdottir K. Release of diltiazem from Eudragit microparticles prepared by spray-drying. Int J Pharm 1996; 137: 159–65Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wan LSC, Heng PWS, Chia GH. Preparation of coated particles using a spray drying process with an aqueous system. Int J Pharm 1991; 77: 183–91Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Munday DL, Fassihi AR. Controlled release delivery: effect of coating composition on release characteristics of mini-tablets. Int J Pharm 1989; 52: 109–14Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Barthelemy P, Laforet JP, Farah N, et al. Compritol® 888 ATO: an innovative hot-melt coating agent for prolonged release drug formulations. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 1999; 47: 87–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hogan JE. Film-coating materials and their properties. In: Cole G, editor. Pharmaceutical coating technology. London: Taylor & Francis, 1995: 6–52Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hogan JE. Modified release coatings. In: Cole G, editor. Pharmaceutical coating technology. London: Taylor & Francis, 1995: 407–37Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ozturk AG, Ozturk SS, Palsson BO, et al. Mechanism of release from pellets coated with an ethylcellulose-based film. J Control Release 1990; 14: 203–13Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dressman JB, Palsson BO, Ozturk A, et al. Mechanisms of release from coated pellets. In: Ghebre-Sellasie I, editor. Multiparticulate oral drug delivery. New York: Dekker, 1994: 285–306Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Xu T, He B. A mechanism on the drug release into a perfect sink from a coated planar matrix with a super-saturation loading in the core. Int J Pharm 2000; 197: 23–34Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Frenning G, Tunon A, Alderborn G. Modelling of drug release from coated granular pellets. J Control Release 2003; 92: 113–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chang RK, Robinson JR. Sustained drug release from tablets and particles through coating. In: Lieberman HA, Lachman L, Schwartz JB, editors. Pharmaceutical dosage forms, tablets. New York: Dekker, 1990: 199–287Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Schultz P, Kleinebudde P. A new multiparticulate delayed release system. Part I: dissolution properties and release mechanism. J Control Release 1997; 47: 181–9Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Laghoueg N, Paulet J, Taverdet JL, et al. Oral polymer-drug devices with a core and an erodible shell for constant drug delivery. Int J Pharm 1989; 50: 133–9Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ragnarsson G, Johansson MO. Coated drug cores in multiple unit preparations: influence of particle size. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1988; 14: 734–9Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Chen BH, Lee DJ. Finite element analysis of slow drug release through deformed coating films: effects of morphology and average thickness of coating film. Int J Pharm 2002; 234: 25–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wesdyk R, Joshi YM, Jain NB, et al. The effect of size and mass on the film thickness of beads coated in fluidized bed equipment. Int J Pharm 1990; 65: 69–76Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wesdyk R, Joshi YM, Vincentis JD, et al. Factors affecting differences in film thickness of beads coated in fluidized bed units. Int J Pharm 1993; 93: 101–9Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Husson I, Leclerc B, Spenlehauer G, et al. Influence of size polydispersity on drug release from coated pellets. Int J Pharm 1992; 86: 113–21Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Chopra R, Alderborn G, Podczeck F, et al. The influence of pellet shape and surface properties on the drug release from uncoated and coated pellets. Int J Pharm 2002; 239: 171–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Johansson B, Alderborn G. Degree of pellet deformation during compaction and its relationship to the tensile strength of tablets formed of microcrystalline cellulose pellets. Int J Pharm 1996; 132: 207–20Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wan LSC, Lai WF. Factors affecting drug release from drug-coated granules prepared by fluidized-bed coating. Int J Pharm 1991; 72: 163–74Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ouriemchi EM, Bouzon J, Vergnaud JM. Oral dosage forms with a core and shell with the same polymer containing different drug concentrations. Int J Pharm 1994; 102: 47–54Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ragnarsson G, Sandberg A, Johansson MO, et al. In vitro release characteristics of a membrane-coated pellet formulation: influence of drug solubility and particle size. Int J Pharm 1992; 79: 223–32Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Nesbitt RU, Mahjour M, Mills NL, et al. Effect of substrate on mass release from ethylcellulose latex coated pellets. J Control Release 1994; 32: 71–7Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sadeghi F, Ford JL, Rajabi-Siahboomi A. The influence of drug type on the release profile from Surelease-coated pellets. Int J Pharm 2003; 254: 123–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sousa JJ, Sousa A, Moura MJ, et al. The influence of core materials and film coating on the drug release from coated pellets. Int J Pharm 2002; 233: 111–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Eerikainen S, Lindqvist AS. The behaviour of various fillers in spheronized uncoated and film coats granules containing slightly water-soluble in-domethacin. Int J Pharm 1991; 75: 181–92Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Mazzone DN, Tardos GI, Pfeffer R. The behavior of liquid bridges between two relatively moving particles. Pow Tech 1987; 51: 71–83Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Singh SK, Reddy IK, Khan MA. Optimization and characterization of controlled release pellets coated with an experimental latex: II. Cationic drug. Int J Pharm 1996; 141: 179–95Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Schultz P, Tho I, Kleinebudde P. A new multiparticulate delayed release system. Part II: Coating formulation and properties of free films. J Control Release 1997; 47: 191–9Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Faroongsarng D, Peck GE. The swelling of core tablets during aqueous coating I: a simple model describing extent of swelling and water penetration for insoluble tablets containing a superdisintegrant. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1991; 17(18): 2439–55Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Faroongsarng D, Peck GE. The swelling of core tablets during aqueous coating II: an application of the model describing extent of swelling and water penetration for insoluble tablets. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1992; 18(14): 1527–34Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Thoma K, Bechtold K. Influence of aqueous coatings on the stability of enteric coated pellets and tablets. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 1999; 47: 39–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    O’Donnell PB, Wu C, Wang J, et al. Aqueous pseudolatex of zein for film coating of solid dosage forms. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 1997; 43: 83–9Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Abletshauser CB, Schneider R, Rupprecht H. Film coating of pellets with insoluble polymers obtained in situ crosslinking in the fluidized bed. J Control Release 1993; 27: 149–56Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Kim TH, Park YH, Kim KJ, et al. Release of albumin from chitosan-coated pectin beads in vitro. Int J Pharm 2003; 250: 371–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Pillay V, Fassihi R. In vitro release modulation from crosslinked pellets for site-specific drug delivery to the gastrointestinal tract: I. Comparison of pH-responsive drug release and associated kinetics. J Control Release 1999; 59: 229–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Chang RK, Iturrioz G, Luo CW. Preparation and evaluation of shellac pseudolatex as an aqueous enteric coating system for pellets. Int J Pharm 1990; 60: 171–3Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Fulzele SV, Satturwar PM, Dorle AK. Polymerized rosin: novel film forming polymer for drug delivery. Int J Pharm 2002; 249: 175–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Porter SC. Controlled-release film coatings based on ethylcellulose. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1989; 15: 1495–521Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Husson I, Leclere B, Spenlehauer G, et al. Modeling of drug release from pellets coated with an insoluble polymeric membrane. J Control Release 1991; 17: 163–74Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Savage GV, Rhodes CT. The sustained release coating of solid dosage forms: a historical review. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1995; 21: 93–118Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Musko Z, Hodi P, Gaspar R, et al. Study of in vitro and in vivo dissolution of theophylline from film-coated pellets. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2001; 51: 143–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Leszek K. Excipients used in the formulation of extended-release dosage forms. In: Extended release dosage forms. Florida: CRC Press, 1987: 171–88Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Thombre AG, Denoto AR, Falkner FC, et al. In vitro/in vivo correlations of sustained-release coated multiparticulate formulations of doxazosin. Int J Pharm 1994; 111: 181–9Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Lecomte F, Siepmann J, Walther M, et al. Blends of enteric and GIT-insoluble polymers used for film coating: physicochemical characterization and drug release patterns. J Control Release 2003; 89: 457–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Rowe RC. Defects in aqueous film coated tablets. In: McGinity JW, editor. Aqueous polymeric coatings for pharmaceutical dosage forms. 2nd ed. New York: Dekker, 1997: 419–40Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Rowe RC. The effect of the molecular weight of ethyl cellulose on the drug release properties of mixed films of ethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. Int J Pharm 1986; 29: 37–41Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Gutierrez-Rocca JC, McGinity JW. Influence of water soluble and insoluble plasticizers on the physical and mechanical properties of acrylic resin copolymers. Int J Pharm 1994; 103: 293–301Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Li SP, Feld KM, Kowarski CR. Preparation and evaluation of Eudragit® acrylic resin for controlled drug release of pseudoephedrine hydrochloride. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1991; 17: 1655–83Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Tarvainen M, Sutinen R, Peltonen S, et al. Enhanced film-forming properties for ethylcellulose and starch acetate using n-alkenyl succinic anhydrides as novel plasticizers. Eur J Pharm Sci 2003; 19: 363–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Saettone MF, Perini G, Rijli P, et al. Effect of different polymer-plasticizer combinations on ‘in vitro’ release of theophylline from coated pellets. Int J Pharm 1995; 126: 83–8Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Heinamaki JT, Lehtola VM, Nikupaavo P, et al. The mechanical and moisture permeability properties of aqueous-based hydroxypropyl methylcellulose coating systems plasticized with polyethylene glycol. Int J Pharm 1994; 112: 191–6Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Gunder W, Lippold BH, Lippold BC. Release of drugs from ethyl cellulose microcapsules (diffusion pellets) with pore formers and pore fusion. Eur J Pharm Sci 1995; 3: 203–14Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Salellariou P, Rowe RC. The morphology of blends of ethylcellulose with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as used in film coating. Int J Pharm 1995; 125: 289–96Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Bodmeier R, Guo X, Paeratakul O. Process and formulation factors affecting the drug release from pellets coated with the ethylcellulose-pseudolatex Aquacoat. In: McGinity JW, editor. Aqueous polymeric coatings for pharmaceutical dosage forms. 2nd ed. New York: Dekker, 1997: 55–80Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Hjartstam J, Hjertberg T. Swelling of pellets coated with a composite film containing ethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. Int J Pharm 1998; 161: 23–8Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Chopra SK, Tawashi R. Tack behavior of coating solutions III. J Pharm Sci 1985; 74: 746–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Heng PWS, Chan LW, Chan WY. Application of spot colour measurement for the optimization of colour coating. STP Pharm Sci 1999; 9: 539–44Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Gibson SHM, Rowe RC, White EFT. Determination of critical pigment volume concentrations of pigmented film coating formulations using gloss measurement. Int J Pharm 1988; 45: 245–8Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Nyamweya N, Mehta K, Hoag SW. Characterization of the interactions between polymethacrylate-based aqueous polymeric dispersions and aluminium lakes. J Pharm Sci 2001; 90: 1937–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Wan LSC, Lai WF. The influence of antitack additives on drug release from film-coated granules. Int J Pharm 1992; 94: 39–47Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Yuasa H, Nakano T, Kanaya Y. Suppression of agglomeration in fluidized bed coating I: suppression of agglomeration by adding NaCl. Int J Pharm 1997; 158: 195–201Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Nakano T, Yuasa H. Suppression of agglomeration in fluidized bed coating: IV. Effects of sodium citrate concentration on the suppression of particle agglomeration and the physical properties of HPMC film. Int J Pharm 2000; 215: 3–12Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Heng PWS, Wan LSC, Tan YTF. Relationship between aggregation of HPMC coated spheroids and tackiness/viscosity/additives of the coating formulations. Int J Pharm 1996; 138: 57–66Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Ghebre-Sellassie I, Gordon RH, Nesbitt RU, et al. Evaluation of acrylic-based modified-release film coatings. Int J Pharm 1987; 37: 211–8Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Wong TW, Heng PWS, Yeo TN, et al. Influence of polyvinylpyrrolidone on aggregation propensity of coated spheroids. Int J Pharm 2002; 242: 357–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Yang ST, Savage GV, Weiss J, et al. The effect of spray mode and chamber geometry of fluid-bed coating equipment and other parameters on an aqueous-based ethylcellulose coating. Int J Pharm 1992; 86: 247–57Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Bertelsen P, Christensen FN, Holm P, et al. Comparison of organic solvent-based ethylcellulose coating on KC1 crystals applied by top and bottom spraying in fluidized-bed equipment. Int J Pharm 1994; 111: 117–25Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Cole GC. Coating pans and coating columns. In: Cole G, editor. Pharmaceutical coating technology. London: Taylor & Francis, 1995: 205–39Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Mehta AM. Processing and equipment considerations for aqueous coatings. In: McGinity JW, editor. Aqueous polymeric coatings for pharmaceutical dosage forms. 2nd ed. New York: Dekker, 1997: 287–326Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Yang ST, Ghebre-Sellassie I. The effect of product bed temperature on the microstructure of Aquacoat-based controlled-release coatings. Int J Pharm 1990; 60: 109–24Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Oliveira WP, Freire JT, Coury JR. Analysis of particle coating by spouted bed process. Int J Pharm 1997; 158: 1–9Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Cole GC. The coating process. In: Cole G, editor. Pharmaceutical coating technology. London: Taylor & Francis, 1995: 170–204Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Wan LSC, Heng PWS, Liew CV. The influence of liquid spray rate and atomizing pressure on the size of spray droplets and spheroids. Int J Pharm 1995; 118: 213–9Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Harris MR, Ghebre-Sellassie I. Aqueous polymeric coating for modified release oral dosage forms. In: McGinity JW, editor. Aqueous polymeric coatings for pharmaceutical dosage forms. 2nd ed. New York: Dekker, 1997: 81–100Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Gilligan CA, Po ALW. Factors affecting drug release from a pellet system coated with an aqueous colloidal dispersion. Int J Pharm 1991; 73: 51–68Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elaine S. K. Tang
    • 1
  • L. W. Chan
    • 1
  • Paul W. S. Heng
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of ScienceNational University of SingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations