1
|
Alfano FO, Di Renzo A, Di Maio FP. Discrete Element Method Evaluation of Triboelectric Charging Due to Powder Handling in the Capsule of a DPI. Pharmaceutics 2023; 15:1762. [PMID: 37376210 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15061762] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2023] [Revised: 06/15/2023] [Accepted: 06/16/2023] [Indexed: 06/29/2023] Open
Abstract
The generation and accumulation of an electrostatic charge from handling pharmaceutical powders is a well-known phenomenon, given the insulating nature of most APIs (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients) and excipients. In capsule-based DPIs (Dry Powder Inhalers), the formulation is stored in a gelatine capsule placed in the inhaler just before inhalation. The action of capsule filling, as well as tumbling or vibration effects during the capsule life cycle, implies a consistent amount of particle-particle and particle-wall contacts. A significant contact-induced electrostatic charging can then take place, potentially affecting the inhaler's efficiency. DEM (Discrete Element Method) simulations were performed on a carrier-based DPI formulation (salbutamol-lactose) to evaluate such effects. After performing a comparison with the experimental data on a carrier-only system under similar conditions, a detailed analysis was conducted on two carrier-API configurations with different API loadings per carrier particle. The charge acquired by the two solid phases was tracked in both the initial particle settling and the capsule shaking process. Alternating positive-negative charging was observed. Particle charging was then investigated in relation to the collision statistics, tracking the particle-particle and particle-wall events for the carrier and API. Finally, an analysis of the relative importance of electrostatic, cohesive/adhesive, and inertial forces allowed the importance of each term in determining the trajectory of the powder particles to be estimated.
Collapse
|
2
|
Newman B, Babiskin A, Bielski E, Boc S, Dhapare S, Fang L, Feibus K, Kaviratna A, Li BV, Luke MC, Ma T, Spagnola M, Walenga RL, Wang Z, Zhao L, El-Gendy N, Bertha CM, Abd El-Shafy M, Gaglani DK. Scientific and regulatory activities initiated by the U.S. Food and drug administration to foster approvals of generic dry powder inhalers: Bioequivalence perspective. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2022; 190:114526. [PMID: 36067967 DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2022.114526] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2022] [Revised: 08/26/2022] [Accepted: 08/30/2022] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
Regulatory science for generic dry powder inhalers (DPIs) in the United States (U.S.) has evolved over the last decade. In 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published the draft product-specific guidance (PSG) for fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate inhalation powder. This was the first PSG for a DPI available in the U.S., which provided details on a weight-of-evidence approach for establishing bioequivalence (BE). A variety of research activities including in vivo and in vitro studies were used to support these recommendations, which have led to the first approval of a generic DPI in the U.S. for fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate inhalation powder in January of 2019. This review describes the scientific and regulatory activities that have been initiated by FDA to support the current BE recommendations for DPIs that led to the first generic DPI approvals, as well as research with novel in vitro and in silico methods that may potentially facilitate generic DPI development and approval.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bryan Newman
- Division of Therapeutic Performance I, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Andrew Babiskin
- Division of Quantitative Methods and Modeling, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Elizabeth Bielski
- Division of Therapeutic Performance I, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Susan Boc
- Division of Therapeutic Performance I, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Sneha Dhapare
- Division of Therapeutic Performance I, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Lanyan Fang
- Division of Quantitative Methods and Modeling, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Katharine Feibus
- Division of Therapeutic Performance I, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Anubhav Kaviratna
- Division of Therapeutic Performance I, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Bing V Li
- Office of Bioequivalence, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Markham C Luke
- Division of Therapeutic Performance I, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Tian Ma
- Division of Bioequivalence I, Office of Bioequivalence, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Michael Spagnola
- Division of Clinical Safety and Surveillance, Office of Safety and Clinical Evaluation, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Ross L Walenga
- Division of Quantitative Methods and Modeling, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
| | - Zhong Wang
- Division of Quantitative Methods and Modeling, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Liang Zhao
- Division of Quantitative Methods and Modeling, Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Nashwa El-Gendy
- Division of Immediate and Modified Release Drug Products III, Office of Lifecycle Drug Products, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Craig M Bertha
- Division of New Drug Products II, Office of New Drug Products, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Mohammed Abd El-Shafy
- Division of Immediate and Modified Release Drug Products III, Office of Lifecycle Drug Products, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Dhaval K Gaglani
- Division of Immediate and Modified Release Drug Products III, Office of Lifecycle Drug Products, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hebbink GA, Jaspers M, Peters HJW, Dickhoff BHJ. Recent developments in lactose blend formulations for carrier-based dry powder inhalation. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2022; 189:114527. [PMID: 36070848 DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2022.114527] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2022] [Revised: 08/24/2022] [Accepted: 08/30/2022] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
Lactose is the most commonly used excipient in carrier-based dry powder inhalation (DPI) formulations. Numerous inhalation therapies have been developed using lactose as a carrier material. Several theories have described the role of carriers in DPI formulations. Although these theories are valuable, each DPI formulation is unique and are not described by any single theory. For each new formulation, a specific development trajectory is required, and the versatility of lactose can be exploited to optimize each formulation. In this review, recent developments in lactose-based DPI formulations are discussed. The effects of varying the material properties of lactose carrier particles, such as particle size, shape, and morphology are reviewed. Owing to the complex interactions between the particles in a formulation, processing adhesive mixtures of lactose with the active ingredient is crucial. Therefore, blending and filling processes for DPI formulations are also reviewed. While the role of ternary agents, such as magnesium stearate, has increased, lactose remains the excipient of choice in carrier-based DPI formulations. Therefore, new developments in lactose-based DPI formulations are crucial in the optimization of inhalable medicine performance.
Collapse
|
6
|
Capecelatro J, Longest W, Boerman C, Sulaiman M, Sundaresan S. Recent developments in the computational simulation of dry powder inhalers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2022; 188:114461. [PMID: 35868587 DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2022.114461] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2022] [Revised: 07/09/2022] [Accepted: 07/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
This article reviews recent developments in computational modeling of dry powder inhalers (DPIs). DPIs deliver drug formulations (sometimes blended with larger carrier particles) to a patient's lungs via inhalation. Inhaler design is complicated by the need for maximum aerosolization efficiency, which is favored by high levels of turbulence near the mouthpiece, with low extrathoracic depositional loss, which requires low turbulence levels near the mouth-throat region. In this article, we review the physical processes contributing to aerosolization and subsequent dispersion and deposition. We assess the performance characteristics of DPIs using existing simulation techniques and offer a perspective on how such simulations can be improved to capture the physical processes occurring over a wide range of length- and timescales more efficiently.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jesse Capecelatro
- Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
| | - Worth Longest
- Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Connor Boerman
- Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Mostafa Sulaiman
- Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
| | - Sankaran Sundaresan
- Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
| |
Collapse
|