Next Article in Journal
MAP Kinase Pathways in Brain Endothelial Cells and Crosstalk with Pericytes and Astrocytes Mediate Contrast-Induced Blood–Brain Barrier Disruption
Next Article in Special Issue
Processing Impact on In Vitro and In Vivo Performance of Solid Dispersions—A Comparison between Hot-Melt Extrusion and Spray Drying
Previous Article in Journal
Preclinical Evaluation of the Safety and Immunological Action of Allogeneic ADSC-Collagen Scaffolds in the Treatment of Chronic Ischemic Cardiomyopathy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Laser Speed and Drug Particle Size on Selective Laser Sintering 3D Printing of Amorphous Solid Dispersions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pharmaceutics
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/pharmaceutics13081271
pharmaceutics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

Amorphous Drug-Polymer Salts

by
Xin Yao
,
Amy Lan Neusaenger
and
Lian Yu
*
School of Pharmacy and Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53705, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmaceutics 2021, 13(8), 1271; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13081271
Submission received: 11 June 2021 / Revised: 28 July 2021 / Accepted: 28 July 2021 / Published: 17 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Amorphous Solid Dispersions of Poorly Soluble Drugs: Materials Science and Engineering Perspective)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Amorphous formulations provide a general approach to improving the solubility and bioavailability of drugs. Amorphous medicines for global health should resist crystallization under the stressful tropical conditions (high temperature and humidity) and often require high drug loading. We discuss the recent progress in employing drug–polymer salts to meet these goals. Through local salt formation, an ultra-thin polyelectrolyte coating can form on the surface of amorphous drugs, immobilizing interfacial molecules and inhibiting fast crystal growth at the surface. The coated particles show improved wetting and dissolution. By forming an amorphous drug–polymer salt throughout the bulk, stability can be vastly enhanced against crystallization under tropical conditions without sacrificing the dissolution rate. Examples of these approaches are given, along with suggestions for future work.

1. Introduction

An amorphous drug has a higher solubility than its crystalline counterpart, providing a general approach to improving the solubility and bioavailability of drugs [1,2,3]. Drugs considered for amorphous formulations are often hydrophobic and poorly water soluble, belonging to Class II and IV of the Biopharmaceuticals Classification System. These drugs are often dispersed in hydrophilic polymers, producing the so-called amorphous solid dispersions (ASDs), to help their dispersion and dissolution in water.
Medicines for global health should be stable under the highly stressful tropical conditions (high temperature and high humidity) and often require high drug loading. These requirements present additional challenges for amorphous formulations. Moisture is a potent mobility-enhancer and can dramatically accelerate the crystallization of amorphous drugs [4,5], especially when combined with high temperature. For this reason, the combination of 40 °C and 75% RH (the “G condition”) is the harshest for pharmaceutical stability testing and the highest bar for the stability of amorphous drugs. High drug loading is desirable for those global-health medicines that have a high pill burden; for example, treatment for HIV requires 3–12 pills per day [6,7]. High drug loading in a single dosage form reduces patient discomfort and improves compliance.
Here, we discuss our recent work performed with support from the Gates Foundation to develop stable amorphous formulations for global health. Based on the needs for global health discussed above, our goal is a low-cost manufacturing strategy for amorphous formulations with high drug loading and high stability under tropical conditions. We show that amorphous drug–polymer salts offer a promising approach toward this goal. This strategy can be implemented by (1) local salt formation (polyelectrolyte coating) on the surface of an amorphous drug and (2) uniform salt formation throughout the bulk. We provide examples that illustrate this strategy and the improvement of formulation performance as a result.
A drug–polymer salt is produced by an acid-base reaction between a small-molecule drug and an ionizable polymer (polyelectrolyte). Although salt formation is a common approach in drug development [8,9,10,11], the counterions are typically small inorganic ions or small organic ions, not charged polymers. We will demonstrate the special advantages of polymeric counterions in salt formation. In the context of amorphous formulations, a salt formed with a polymeric counterion has greater resistance to crystallization than a salt formed with a small inorganic or organic counterion. This is a result of the awkward packing required for a drug and a polymer to crystallize together. Additionally, polyelectrolytes tend to be hydrophilic, and their incorporation into a drug formulation improves wetting and dispersion in water. A polymer has a lower solubility than its monomer or oligomers and provides stronger adhesion to solid surfaces. As a result, polyelectrolytes are often good coating materials, while low-molecular-weight materials could fail for this purpose.
A polyelectrolyte is a polymer in which all (or nearly all) monomer units can be ionized depending on pH. Polyelectrolytes are useful as viscosity enhancers (thickeners), emulsifiers, modifiers/stabilizers of colloidal structures, and coating materials. They have many applications in a vast array of industries. Many polyelectrolytes are acceptable ingredients in food and drugs; for example, pectin as a thickener and gelling agent in jams and jellies [12]. Polyelectrolytes are used to stabilize nanoparticle suspensions [13]. They play an important role in the formulation of hydrogels with unique characteristics such as self-healing and viscoelasticity (important for bioplastics) [14] and responsiveness to external stimuli (useful for sensors and drug delivery vehicles) [15,16,17,18]. A key application of polyelectrolytes for this work is their ability to produce ultra-thin coatings through electrostatic deposition and layer-by-layer assembly [19]. The ultra-thin coatings have been used to control drug release [20], stabilize drug delivery vehicles [21], and protect medical devices from causing fungal infections [22]. This work is concerned with the applications of polyelectrolytes in stabilizing amorphous drugs.
As illustrated in Figure 1, we investigate two modes of salt formation between an amorphous drug and a polymer. Polyelectrolytes are used to form ultra-thin coatings on the surface of amorphous drugs (left). An acidic drug exposes negative charges in an aqueous medium (with pH > pKa) and can be coated with polycations. Likewise, a basic drug exposes positive charges in an aqueous medium (with pH < pKa) and can be coated with polyanions. Due to charge neutralization, a polyelectrolyte coating is extremely thin, approximately a monolayer, a property useful for achieving a high drug loading. On the right of Figure 1, we show similar processes of salt formation but shift our focus to the bulk material. By reacting acidic (basic) drugs with basic (acidic) polymers, amorphous salts can be formed throughout the materials, not just on the surface. These two modes of salt formation will be discussed in Section 2 and Section 3.

2. Polyelectrolyte Coating

Recent work has shown that amorphous drugs can grow crystals much faster at the free surface than in the bulk [23,24,25,26,27,28]. This is a result of the high mobility of molecules on the surface [29,30,31,32,33] and has motivated the development of surface coatings to stabilize amorphous drugs. Figure 2A shows the diffusion constants measured on the surface and in the interior of molecular glasses, many of which are amorphous drugs. Surface diffusion can be much faster than bulk diffusion by up to eight orders of magnitude when compared at the glass transition temperature Tg, and the difference increases with cooling [34,35]. High surface mobility is a result of fewer neighbors surrounding a surface molecule relative to a bulk molecule, making it freer to move. The greater variation of surface mobility relative to bulk mobility is a consequence of the different degrees to which surface molecules are liberated relative to bulk molecules.
Fast surface diffusion leads to fast surface crystal growth. In Figure 2B, the surface crystal growth rate us is plotted against the surface diffusion coefficient Ds, and we observe a nearly proportional relation, us ~ Ds0.87. That is, the faster the surface diffusion, the faster the surface crystal growth by about the same factor. This supports the notion that surface crystal growth is controlled by surface diffusion [34,35]. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that surface crystals grow upward and laterally without deep penetration into the bulk and are surrounded by grooves created by the surface motion of molecules toward the crystal [36,37].
Fast surface crystallization presents a significant threat to the stability of amorphous drugs. All amorphous formulations have free surfaces and internal voids where crystallization can be accelerated by enhanced surface mobility. The problem worsens for formulations with high surface-to-volume ratios, including powders, thin films, and nanoparticles [23]. However, since surface crystallization is highly localized, the problem can be solved with a local solution—surface coatings. A coating, in essence, converts surface molecules into bulk molecules, thus eliminating surface crystallization. As we discuss below, surface coating by polyelectrolytes provides an ultra-thin nano-coating with many advantages: stability against crystallization, high drug loading, improved wetting, fast dissolution, good powder flow, and direct tabletability. Table 1 shows examples of the polyelectrolyte coating of amorphous drugs. Specific examples are discussed below.
Wu et al. first demonstrated the use of a polyelectrolyte coating to inhibit surface crystal growth on an amorphous drug [38]. They coated amorphous indomethacin (IMC), a weak acid with pKa = 4.5, with the polycation PDDA (polydiallyldimethylammonium) in an aqueous solution. At the coating pH (6.1), the IMC and PDDA are oppositely charged, allowing for electrostatic deposition and the reversal of surface charge (Figure 3). In contrast, the polyanion PSS (poly(styrenesulfonate)) cannot directly coat IMC due to charge repulsion, but it can deposit on a previously coated layer of PDDA. A multilayer coat can be produced by alternate deposition of PDDA and PSS. Wu et al. found that coated amorphous IMC is significantly more stable against crystallization than uncoated amorphous IMC. The effect is pronounced even with a single coat of PDDA: after 20 days at 40 °C, an uncoated sample is fully covered by crystals, while a coated sample has a coverage of only several percent. This ultra-thin coating helps achieve a very high drug loading and improves the flowability of drug powders (the angle of repose is reduced from 36° to 18°).
Further work on surface coating employed amorphous IMC as a model substrate and pharmaceutically acceptable polymers as coating materials (PDDA is not a pharmaceutical excipient). For example, Li et al. performed a comprehensive study of the effect of chitosan coating on the properties of amorphous IMC [41]. Chitosan is a natural basic polymer (pKa = 6.5). Though weaker than PDDA as a polyelectrolyte, a chitosan coating similarly eliminates surface crystallization in IMC for samples tested in both film and particle geometries. Li et al. also compared chitosan with gelatin, an even weaker polyelectrolyte, as coating materials and found chitosan-coated particles to be more stable against crystallization and to remain free-flowing upon storage, whereas gelatin-coated particles became sticky after storage at high humidity and clumped together. Importantly, chitosan-coated amorphous particles dissolved in water faster than uncoated particles (Figure 4) [41]. The improvement is a result of better wetting and the slower crystallization of coated particles during dissolution. These effects apparently outweigh the barrier effect of the polymer coating in drug release. The thin chitosan coating also improved powder flow and tabletability.
Subsequent work on polyelectrolyte coating extended beyond the acidic drug IMC to include basic drugs (Table 1). These studies applied the same principle of coating illustrated in Figure 1 but used polyanions to coat the positively charged surfaces of basic drugs. For the basic drug clofazimine (CFZ, pKa = 8.5), Gui et al. investigated the coating of alginic acid (pKa = 3.5) [42]. They performed the coating in an aqueous solution at pH 7 so that the drug and the polymer were oppositely charged to allow for electrostatic deposition. The coating effect on stability was evaluated for particles stored at 90 °C and 40 °C/75% RH. At 90 °C, the coated particles did not crystalize in 60 days, while the uncoated particles fully crystallized. At 40 °C/75% RH, the coated particles crystallized approximately three times slower than the uncoated particles. The coated particles dissolved faster in Simulated Gastric Fluid (SGF) than the uncoated particles and showed more prolonged supersaturation (the “spring-and-parachute” profile). Within one hour, the coated particles dissolved two times faster than the uncoated amorphous particles and three times faster than the uncoated crystalline particles. As in the case of chitosan-coated IMC, the alginate coating improved the wetting of the coated particles and slowed their crystallization during dissolution.
Besides polyelectrolyte coatings, other coating methods have been used to improve the properties of amorphous formulations, both solvent-based [44,45,46,47,48] and solvent-free [39,49,50,51,52]. Relative to the other methods, polyelectrolyte coatings applied via electrostatic deposition are characterized by extremely small thickness (several to tens of nanometers per layer). Even at this thickness, the coating eliminates surface crystallization. This coating method differs from many others in that an aqueous coating solution is used. An aqueous medium is compatible with poorly water-soluble drugs, in which they are present as undissolved, solid particles to be coated, while the use of organic solvents may dissolve the drugs. Polyelectrolyte coating is applied using a simple dip-coating process, which ensures coating uniformity. Owing to the small amount of coating material in the final product, this method helps achieve high drug loading while saving room in the formulation for other functional excipients. Enumerating these advantages is not to imply that polyelectrolyte coating is superior to other coating methods in all respects. A thicker coating is required for applications where solid particles collide, causing coatings to wear off, and where a thicker layer is needed for the passage through the stomach for controlled release.

3. Amorphous Drug–Polymer Salts in the Bulk

Although a thin surface coating can eliminate surface crystallization, many amorphous drugs crystallize so rapidly in the bulk (especially under the stressful tropical conditions) that additional protection is needed. Furthermore, what appears to be a contiguous bulk material may, in fact, contain voids and fractures that lead to fast local crystallization [53]. This internal process can propagate in a vicious cycle through additional fracture and additional crystal growth [53]. There has been extensive work on the use of polymers as inhibitors of bulk crystallization [54,55,56]. The ensuing discussion focuses on the use of drug–polymer salts to stabilize amorphous formulations under what is perhaps the harshest condition for stability testing, 40 °C/75% RH, without sacrificing dissolution performance. This condition presents an ultimate separator for stabilization strategies. For example, surface-coated amorphous IMC is quite stable at 40 °C and in low humidity but quickly crystallizes at 40 °C/75% RH [41], indicating the need for further stabilization.
In Table 2, we summarize the examples of amorphous drug–polymer salts with attention to synthetic methods, drug loading, stability at 40 °C/75% RH, and dissolution performance. This is followed by case studies and general comments.
Given the difficulty of processing high polymers, the method of forming drug–polymer salts deserves some discussion. According to the literature, drug–polymer salts can be prepared using many methods, including hot-melt extrusion (HME), ball milling, cryogenic milling, solvent evaporation such as spray- and freeze-drying, mixing solutions, and slurry conversion. The first two methods require no solvents. HME achieves the uniform mixing of components by heat, pressure, and physical mixing [68]. In ball milling and cryogenic grinding, solid components are mixed along with particle size reduction [69]. The other methods on the list above require the use of solvents, which help lower the processing temperature (necessary for thermally labile drugs and polymers) and increase the rate of mass transport [70]. The solvent evaporation method requires a common solvent for the drug and the polymer, which could be difficult to find when the polymer is hydrophilic (an electrolyte) and the drug is hydrophobic and poorly water soluble. The mixing of two solutions, one of the drug and the other of the polymer, has been used to prepare drug–polymer salts (“complexes”) and nanoparticles [64]. In our work, slurry conversion was used as a low-cost method to prepare amorphous drug–polymer salts [64]. In this method, solid components are mixed in the presence of a small amount of solvent with mild heating and stirring. Since equilibration is slow in a polymer system, there is room for future optimization and innovation in engineering the structures of amorphous drug–polymer salts.
We illustrate the formation of amorphous drug–polymer salts and their pharmaceutical benefits using the reaction of the acidic polymer poly(acrylic acid) (PAA) with two basic drugs, clofazimine (CFZ) [64] and lumefantrine (LMF) [65]. For both systems, a simple slurry method was used to produce the amorphous salt at a high drug loading (75% for CFZ–PAA and 50% for LMF–PAA). The synthesis was performed under a mild condition suitable for thermally unstable drugs and polymers. The salt formation was confirmed by spectroscopy, and we illustrate this for CFZ–PAA (Figure 5) [64]. With increasing drug loading, the visible absorption spectrum initially does not change much but then undergoes a blue shift, eventually becoming the spectrum of the free base. The evolution is well fitted by a two-state model and exhibits an isosbestic point, indicating an equilibrium between the neutral and the ionized drug molecules. The spectral shift indicates a saturation drug loading of 70%, above which the drug–polymer mixture contains neutral drug molecules. For both CFZ and LMF, the salt formation with PAA elevates the glass transition temperature Tg above the Tg of the polymer (126 °C), indicating significant reduction of molecular mobility.
For both CFZ and LMF, salt formation vastly improves the stability against crystallization at 40 °C/75% RH (Figure 6). No crystallization was observed in CFZ–PAA at 75% drug loading for at least 6 months, while the neutral dispersion of unionized CFZ in PVP or PVP/VA began crystallizing within weeks. In the case of the amorphous LMF–PAA salt (50% drug loading), no crystallization was observed for at least 18 months, while the neutral dispersion in PVP or HPMCAS began to crystallize within weeks. Despite the higher stability, these amorphous drug–polymer salts showed fast dissolution and extended supersaturation in biorelevant media SGF and FaSSIF [64,65]. Their solid particles remained free flowing after storage at 40 °C/75% RH and showed improved tabletability.
When a comparison is possible, polymers that allow for salt formation with the drug appear to inhibit crystallization better than those that do not. Some of these cases are given in Table 2. For example, indomethacin is more stable when formulated with Eudragit EPO, a salt former, than with HPMC, a neutral, non-salt-forming polymer [60]. Clofazimine and lumefantrine, both bases, are more stable when formulated with an acidic polymer than with a neutral polymer [62,64,65]. This confirms the importance of salt formation on the stability of amorphous drug–polymer formulations.
Why is an amorphous drug–polymer salt so stable against crystallization at high temperatures and in high humidity? Crystallization requires a driving force and molecular mobility. The formation of a drug–polymer salt simultaneously reduces the driving force and molecular mobility. Because of strong ionic interactions, salt formation reduces the system’s free energy to a greater extent than the mixing of neutral components. This is illustrated in Figure 7. The large free energy of mixing leads to a lower (even zero or negative) driving force for crystallization. In Figure 7, we imagine a drug dissolved in a non-crystallizing polymer such as PVP and PAA, for which the only practical pathway of crystallization is the formation of drug crystals. This is because it is nearly impossible for the drug and the polymer to crystallize together in the same unit cell.
The low molecular mobility of an amorphous salt is a consequence of its high Tg. Salt formation is observed to elevate the Tg to a greater extent than the mixing of neutral components [64,65]. Given that amorphous systems have similar mobility at Tg, this means that an amorphous salt has substantially lower mobility than a neutral dispersion when stored at the same temperature. Our discussion above indicates that by forming a salt with a polymer, a drug has a lower driving force to crystallize, as well as lower mobility available for crystallization. This leads to high stability against crystallization even under the highly stressful tropical conditions.

4. Concluding Remarks

In this perspective, we discussed the role of drug–polymer salts in stabilizing amorphous drug formulations and improving other pharmaceutical properties. Through local salt formation, an ultra-thin layer of polyelectrolyte can be coated on the surface of amorphous drugs. The thin coating inhibits surface crystallization with a minute amount of coating material and improves wetting, dissolution, power flow, and tableting. With uniform salt formation throughout the bulk, stability against crystallization can be vastly improved under the harshest condition for stability testing, 40 °C/75% RH, without sacrificing the dissolution rate. This effect arises because of the difficulty or inability for the drug and the polymer to crystallize together, the significantly reduced driving force for crystallization, and the increased kinetic barrier for molecular motions. Despite their greater stability, amorphous drug–polymer salts can dissolve rapidly.
One possible area for future work is the optimization of the salt-forming process. The low mobility of high polymers makes the state of a drug–polymer mixture not only a matter of thermodynamics (the tendency for mixing) but also a matter of kinetics (the rate of mixing). To illustrate the kinetic control in this context, consider the different manners in which a small amount (~1%) of the acidic polymer PAA can be incorporated into the basic drug clofazimine: depending on the processing conditions, PAA can be introduced as a surface coating or a bulk additive, both products being kinetically stable [64]. Such flexibility would be difficult to achieve with a small-molecule second component. At present, there are many methods for forming drug–polymer salts, both solvent-free and solvent-assisted. It is of interest to characterize the microstructures of these products for the uniformity and degree of ionization. One parameter to be optimized is the molecular weight of the polyelectrolyte for salt formation. A higher molecular weight could mean a higher Tg and better stability of the amorphous salt, but it might also lead to low solubility, slow drug release, and high viscosity of manufacturing solutions [71,72]. Another parameter to be optimized is the drug–polymer ratio. For clofazimine–PAA (Figure 6), 70% is the maximal drug loading that ensures full ionization. It is of interest to learn whether this should be viewed as the upper limit for drug loading or if even higher loading should be attempted, yielding a mixture of salt and free base without sacrificing stability. These formulation parameters will need to be weighed against their impact on product performance, including stability and dissolution.
Another area of potential future work is the application of polyelectrolyte chemistry to improve drug delivery. Polyelectrolytes have been used to stabilize nanoparticle suspensions [13] and form hydrogels [14]. This property could be related to the observation of colloidal particles during the dissolution of amorphous drug–polymer salts [62,65]. It is of interest to learn whether this is a general property of drug–polymer salts and, if so, whether it has any pharmaceutical applications. An interesting property of drug–polymer salts is that drug release can be triggered by the increase in ionic strength [67]. This property could be useful for the controlled release of drugs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and writing—X.Y., A.L.N. and L.Y.; supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition, L.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We thank the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1160408) for financial support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Niya Bowers, Phil Goliber, and Ellen Harrington for helpful discussions. We also thank Tian Wu, Rattavut Teerakapibal, Chengbin Huang, Yue Gui, Yuhui Li, Changquan Calvin Sun, and Aiguo Zeng for their contributions to the content of this perspective.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yu, L. Amorphous pharmaceutical solids: Preparation, characterization and stabilization. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2001, 48, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pandi, P.; Bulusu, R.; Kommineni, N.; Khan, W.; Singh, M. Amorphous solid dispersions: An update for preparation, characterization, mechanism on bioavailability, stability, regulatory considerations and marketed products. Int. J. Pharm. 2020, 586, 119560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Van den Mooter, G. The use of amorphous solid dispersions: A formulation strategy to overcome poor solubility and dissolution rate. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 2012, 9, e79–e85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Levine, H.; Slade, L. Water as a plasticizer: Physico-chemical aspects of low-moisture polymeric systems. Water Sci. Rev. 1988, 3, 79–185. [Google Scholar]
  5. Andronis, V.; Yoshioka, M.; Zografi, G. Effects of sorbed water on the crystallization of indomethacin from the amorphous state. J. Pharm. Sci. 1997, 86, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Krentz, H.B.; Cosman, I.; Lee, K.; Ming, J.M.; Gill, M.J. Pill burden in HIV infection: 20 years of experience. Antivir. Ther. 2012, 17, 833–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Hagendorff, A.; Freytag, S.; Müller, A.; Klebs, S. Pill burden in hypertensive patients treated with single-pill combination therapy—an observational study. Adv. Ther. 2013, 30, 406–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Stahl, P.H.; Wermuth, C.G. (Eds.) Pharmaceutical Salts: Properties, Selection and Use; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  9. Serajuddin, A.T. Salt formation to improve drug solubility. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2007, 59, 603–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sun, C.C. Cocrystallization for successful drug delivery. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2013, 10, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Karimi-Jafari, M.; Padrela, L.; Walker, G.M.; Croker, D.M. Creating cocrystals: A review of pharmaceutical cocrystal preparation routes and applications. Cryst. Growth Des. 2018, 18, 6370–6387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Thakur, B.R.; Singh, R.K.; Handa, A.K.; Rao, M.A. Chemistry and uses of pectin—A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1997, 1, 47–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liufu, S.; Xiao, H.; Li, Y. Adsorption of poly (acrylic acid) onto the surface of titanium dioxide and the colloidal stability of aqueous suspension. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2005, 281, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sun, S.; Mao, L.-B.; Lei, Z.; Yu, S.-H.; Cölfen, H. Hydrogels from Amorphous Calcium Carbonate and Polyacrylic Acid: Bio-Inspired Materials for “Mineral Plastics”. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2016, 39, 11765–11769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Shang, J.; Shao, Z.; Chen, X. Electrical Behavior of a Natural Polyelectrolyte Hydrogel: Chitosan/Carboxymethylcellulose Hydrogel. Biomacromolecules 2008, 4, 1208–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tan, C.; Wang, Q. Reversible Terbium Luminescent Polyelectrolyte Hydrogels for Detection of H2PO4−and HSO4−in Water. Inorg. Chem. 2011, 7, 2953–2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Zhao, C.; Zhuang, X.; He, P.; Xiao, C.; He, C.; Sun, J.; Chen, X.; Jing, X. Synthesis of biodegradable thermo- and pH-responsive hydrogels for controlled drug release. Polymer 2009, 18, 4308–4316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shchukin, D.G.; Sukhorukov, G.B. Selective YF3 nanoparticle formation in polyelectrolyte capsules as microcontainers for yttrium recovery from aqueous solutions. Langmuir 2003, 19, 4427–4431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lvov, Y.; Decher, G.; Moehwald, H. Assembly, structural characterization, and thermal behavior of layer-by-layer deposited ultrathin films of poly (vinyl sulfate) and poly (allylamine). Langmuir 1993, 9, 481–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Polomska, A.; Leroux, J.C.; Brambilla, D. Layer-by-Layer Coating of Solid Drug Cores: A Versatile Method to Improve Stability, Control Release and Tune Surface Properties. Macromol. Biosci. 2017, 17, 1600228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Donatan, S.; Yashchenok, A.; Khan, N.; Parakhonskiy, B.; Cocquyt, M.; Pinchasik, B.E.; Khalenkow, D.; Möhwald, H.; Konrad, M.; Skirtach, A. Loading capacity versus enzyme activity in anisotropic and spherical calcium carbonate microparticles. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 14284–14292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Karlsson, A.J.; Flessner, R.M.; Gellman, S.H.; Lynn, D.M.; Palecek, S.P. Polyelectrolyte multilayers fabricated from antifungal β-peptides: Design of surfaces that exhibit antifungal activity against Candida albicans. Biomacromolecules 2010, 11, 2321–2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Wu, T.; Yu, L. Surface crystallization of indomethacin below Tg. Pharm. Res. 2006, 23, 2350–2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhu, L.; Wong, L.; Yu, L. Surface-enhanced crystallization of amorphous nifedipine. Mol. Pharm. 2008, 5, 921–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zhu, L.; Jona, J.; Nagapudi, K.; Wu, T. Fast surface crystallization of amorphous griseofulvin below Tg. Pharm. Res. 2010, 27, 1558–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gunn, E.M.; Guzei, I.A.; Yu, L. Does crystal density control fast surface crystal growth in glasses? A study with polymorphs. Cryst. Growth Des. 2011, 11, 3979–3984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kestur, U.S.; Taylor, L.S. Evaluation of the crystal growth rate of felodipine polymorphs in the presence and absence of additives as a function of temperature. Cryst. Growth Des. 2013, 13, 4349–4354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hasebe, M.; Musumeci, D.; Powell, C.T.; Cai, T.; Gunn, E.; Zhu, L.; Yu, L. Fast surface crystal growth on molecular glasses and its termination by the onset of fluidity. J. Phys. Chem B 2014, 118, 7638–7646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhu, L.; Brian, C.W.; Swallen, S.F.; Straus, P.T.; Ediger, M.D.; Yu, L. Surface self-diffusion of an organic glass. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 106, 256103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Brian, C.W.; Yu, L. Surface self-diffusion of organic glasses. J. Phys. Chem. A 2013, 117, 13303–13309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, W.; Brian, C.W.; Yu, L. Fast surface diffusion of amorphous o-terphenyl and its competition with viscous flow in surface evolution. J. Phys. Chem. B 2015, 119, 5071–5078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, Y.; Zhu, M.; Laventure, A.; Lebel, O.; Ediger, M.D.; Yu, L. Influence of hydrogen bonding on the surface diffusion of molecular glasses: Comparison of three triazines. J. Phys. Chem. B 2017, 121, 7221–7227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Li, Y.; Zhang, W.; Bishop, C.; Huang, C.; Ediger, M.D.; Yu, L. Surface diffusion in glasses of rod-like molecules posaconazole and itraconazole: Effect of interfacial molecular alignment and bulk penetration. Soft Matter 2020, 16, 5062–5070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yu, L. Surface mobility of molecular glasses and its importance in physical stability. Adv. Drug Del. Rev. 2016, 100, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Huang, C.; Ruan, S.; Cai, T.; Yu, L. Fast surface diffusion and crystallization of amorphous griseofulvin. J. Phys. Chem. B 2017, 121, 9463–9468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sun, Y.; Zhu, L.; Kearns, K.L.; Ediger, M.D.; Yu, L. Glasses crystallize rapidly at free surfaces by growing crystals upward. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 5990–5995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Hasebe, M.; Musumeci, D.; Yu, L. Fast surface crystallization of molecular glasses: Creation of depletion zones by surface diffusion and crystallization flux. J. Phys. Chem. B 2015, 119, 3304–3311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wu, T.; Sun, Y.; Li, N.; De Villiers, M.M.; Yu, L. Inhibiting surface crystallization of amorphous indomethacin by nanocoating. Langmuir 2007, 23, 5148–5153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Priemel, P.A.; Laitinen, R.; Barthold, S.; Grohganz, H.; Lehto, V.P.; Rades, T.; Strachan, C.J. Inhibition of surface crystallisation of amorphous indomethacin particles in physical drug–polymer mixtures. Int. J. Pharm. 2013, 456, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Teerakapibal, R.; Gui, Y.; Yu, L. Gelatin nano-coating for inhibiting surface crystallization of amorphous drugs. Pharm. Res. 2018, 35, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, Y.; Yu, J.; Hu, S.; Chen, Z.; Sacchetti, M.; Sun, C.C.; Yu, L. Polymer nanocoating of amorphous drugs for improving stability, dissolution, powder flow, and tabletability: The case of chitosan-coated indomethacin. Mol. Pharm. 2019, 16, 1305–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Gui, Y.; Chen, Y.; Chen, Z.; Jones, K.J.; Yu, L. Improving stability and dissolution of amorphous clofazimine by polymer nano-coating. Pharm. Res. 2019, 36, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zeng, A.; Yao, X.; Gui, Y.; Li, Y.; Jones, K.J.; Yu, L. Inhibiting surface crystallization and improving dissolution of amorphous loratadine by dextran sulfate nanocoating. J. Sharm. Sci. 2019, 108, 2391–2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Strydom, S.; Liebenberg, W.; Yu, L.; De Villiers, M. The effect of temperature and moisture on the amorphous-to-crystalline transformation of stavudine. Int. J. Pharm. 2009, 379, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Puri, V.; Dantuluri, A.K.; Bansal, A.K. Barrier coated drug layered particles for enhanced performance of amorphous solid dispersion dosage form. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 101, 342–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kawakami, K. Surface effects on the crystallization of ritonavir glass. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. 2015, 104, 276–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hellrup, J.; Alderborn, G.; Mahlin, D. Inhibition of recrystallization of amorphous lactose in nanocomposites formed by spray-drying. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. 2015, 104, 3760–3769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Novakovic, D.; Peltonen, L.; Isomäki, A.; Fraser-Miller, S.J.; Nielsen, L.H.; Laaksonen, T.; Strachan, C.J. Surface stabilization and dissolution rate improvement of amorphous compacts with thin polymer coatings: Can we have it all? Mol. Pharm. 2020, 17, 1248–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Capece, M.; Davé, R. Enhanced physical stability of amorphous drug formulations via dry polymer coating. J. Pharm. Sci. 2015, 104, 2076–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, L.; Ding, X.; He, Z.; Fan, S.; Kunnath, K.T.; Zheng, K.; Davé, R.N. Surface engineered excipients: II. Simultaneous milling and dry coating for preparation of fine-grade microcrystalline cellulose with enhanced properties. Int. J. Pharm. 2018, 546, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Bannow, J.; Koren, L.; Salar-Behzadi, S.; Löbmann, K.; Zimmer, A.; Rades, T. Hot melt coating of amorphous carvedilol. Pharmaceutics 2020, 12, 519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bosselmann, S.; Owens III, D.E.; Kennedy, R.L.; Herpin, M.J.; Williams III, R.O. Plasma deposited stability enhancement coating for amorphous ketoprofen. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2011, 78, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Powell, C.T.; Xi, H.; Sun, Y.; Gunn, E.; Chen, Y.; Ediger, M.D.; Yu, L. Fast crystal growth in o-terphenyl glasses: A possible role for fracture and surface mobility. J. Phys. Chem. B 2015, 119, 10124–10130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kestur, U.S.; Lee, H.; Santiago, D.; Rinaldi, C.; Won, Y.Y.; Taylor, L.S. Effects of the molecular weight and concentration of polymer additives, and temperature on the melt crystallization kinetics of a small drug molecule. Cryst. Growth Des. 2010, 10, 3585–3595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kothari, K.; Ragoonanan, V.; Suryanarayanan, R. The role of drug–polymer hydrogen bonding interactions on the molecular mobility and physical stability of nifedipine solid dispersions. Mol. Pharm. 2015, 12, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Huang, C.; Powell, C.T.; Sun, Y.; Cai, T.; Yu, L. Effect of low-concentration polymers on crystal growth in molecular glasses: A controlling role for polymer segmental mobility relative to host dynamics. J. Phys. Chem. B 2017, 121, 1963–1971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kindermann, C.; Matthée, K.; Strohmeyer, J.; Sievert, F.; Breitkreutz, J. Tailor-made release triggering from hot-melt extruded complexes of basic polyelectrolyte and poorly water-soluble drugs. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2011, 79, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kojima, T.; Higashi, K.; Suzuki, T.; Tomono, K.; Moribe, K.; Yamamoto, K. Stabilization of a supersaturated solution of mefenamic acid from a solid dispersion with EUDRAGIT® EPO. Pharm. Res. 2012, 29, 2777–2791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Song, Y.; Zemlyanov, D.; Chen, X.; Nie, H.; Su, Z.; Fang, K.; Yang, X.; Smith, D.; Byrn, S.; Lubach, J.W. Acid–base interactions of polystyrene sulfonic acid in amorphous solid dispersions using a combined UV/FTIR/XPS/ssNMR study. Mol. Pharm. 2016, 13, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Xie, T.; Gao, W.; Taylor, L.S. Impact of Eudragit EPO and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose on drug release rate, supersaturation, precipitation outcome and redissolution rate of indomethacin amorphous solid dispersions. Int. J. Pharm. 2017, 531, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Duggirala, N.K.; Li, J.; Kumar, N.K.; Gopinath, T.; Suryanarayanan, R. A supramolecular synthon approach to design amorphous solid dispersions with exceptional physical stability. ChemComm 2019, 55, 5551–5554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Trasi, N.S.; Bhujbal, S.V.; Zemlyanov, D.Y.; Zhou, Q.T.; Taylor, L.S. Physical stability and release properties of lumefantrine amorphous solid dispersion granules prepared by a simple solvent evaporation approach. Int. J. Pharm. X 2020, 2, 100052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nie, H.; Su, Y.; Zhang, M.; Song, Y.; Leone, A.; Taylor, L.S.; Marsac, P.J.; Li, T.; Byrn, S.R. Solid-state spectroscopic investigation of molecular interactions between clofazimine and hypromellose phthalate in amorphous solid dispersions. Mol. Pharm. 2016, 13, 3964–3975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Gui, Y.; McCann, E.C.; Yao, X.; Li, Y.; Jones, K.J.; Yu, L. Amorphous Drug–Polymer Salt with High Stability under Tropical Conditions and Fast Dissolution: The Case of Clofazimine and Poly (acrylic acid). Mol. Pharm. 2021, 18, 1364–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yao, X.; Kim, S.; Gui, Y.; Chen, Z.; Yu, J.; Jones, K.J.; Yu, L. Amorphous drug-polymer salt with high stability under tropical conditions and fast dissolution: The challenging case of lumefantrine-PAA. J. Pharm. Sci. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mesallati, H.; Umerska, A.; Paluch, K.J.; Tajber, L. Amorphous Polymeric Drug Salts as Ionic Solid Dispersion Forms of Ciprofloxacin. Mol. Pharm. 2017, 7, 2209–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Cheow, W.S.; Hadinoto, K. Self-assembled amorphous drug–polyelectrolyte nanoparticle complex with enhanced dissolution rate and saturation solubility. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2012, 1, 518–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chen, Y.-C.; Ho, H.-O.; Chiou, J.-D.; Sheu, M.-T. Physical and dissolution characterization of cilostazol solid dispersions prepared by hot melt granulation (HMG) and thermal adhesion granulation (TAG) methods. Int. J. Pharm. 2014, 1–2, 458–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Caron, V.; Hu, Y.; Tajber, L.; Erxleben, A.; Corrigan, O.I.; McArdle, P.; Healy, A.M. Amorphous solid dispersions of sulfonamide/Soluplus® and sulfonamide/PVP prepared by ball milling. AAPS Pharmscitech 2013, 14, 464–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Szafraniec, J.; Antosik, A.; Knapik-Kowalczuk, J.; Gawlak, K.; Kurek, M.; Szlęk, J.; Jamróz, W.; Paluch, M.; Jachowicz, R. Molecular Disorder of Bicalutamide—Amorphous Solid Dispersions Obtained by Solvent Methods. Pharmaceutics 2018, 10, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Puttipipatkhachorn, S.; Nunthanid, J.; Yamamoto, K.; Peck, G.E. Drug physical state and drug–polymer interaction on drug release from chitosan matrix films. J. Control. Release 2001, 75, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ko, J.A.; Park, H.J.; Hwang, S.J.; Park, J.B.; Lee, J.S. Preparation and characterization of chitosan microparticles intended for controlled drug delivery. Int. J. Pharm. 2002, 249, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g001 550
Figure 1. The two types of salt formation between drugs and polyelectrolytes investigated in this work. Left: Local salt formation (polyelectrolytes coating) on the surface of amorphous particles. Right: Uniform amorphous drug–polymer salt throughout the bulk. Each sphere represents an amorphous solid particle. “D” designates a drug molecule.
Figure 1. The two types of salt formation between drugs and polyelectrolytes investigated in this work. Left: Local salt formation (polyelectrolytes coating) on the surface of amorphous particles. Right: Uniform amorphous drug–polymer salt throughout the bulk. Each sphere represents an amorphous solid particle. “D” designates a drug molecule.
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g001
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Diffusion coefficient on the surface (Ds) and in the bulk (Dv) of several glass-forming molecular liquids against a Tg-scaled temperature [33]. Reproduced with permission from [33], Royal Society of Chemistry, 2020. (B) Crystal growth rate on the surface us plotted against the surface diffusion coefficient Ds for molecular glasses and amorphous silicon. OTP: ortho-terphenyl. GSF: griseofulvin. TNB: tris-naphthyl benzene. NIF: nifedipine. IMC: indomethacin. POS: posaconazole. PS: polystyrene oligomers [35]. Reproduced with permission from [35], American Chemical Society, 2017.
Figure 2. (A) Diffusion coefficient on the surface (Ds) and in the bulk (Dv) of several glass-forming molecular liquids against a Tg-scaled temperature [33]. Reproduced with permission from [33], Royal Society of Chemistry, 2020. (B) Crystal growth rate on the surface us plotted against the surface diffusion coefficient Ds for molecular glasses and amorphous silicon. OTP: ortho-terphenyl. GSF: griseofulvin. TNB: tris-naphthyl benzene. NIF: nifedipine. IMC: indomethacin. POS: posaconazole. PS: polystyrene oligomers [35]. Reproduced with permission from [35], American Chemical Society, 2017.
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g002
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g003 550
Figure 3. Zeta potential of amorphous IMC particles versus the number of adsorption steps [38]. Reproduced with permission from [38], American Chemical Society, 2007.
Figure 3. Zeta potential of amorphous IMC particles versus the number of adsorption steps [38]. Reproduced with permission from [38], American Chemical Society, 2007.
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g003
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g004 550
Figure 4. The effect of chitosan coating on the dissolution rate of amorphous IMC particles at 37 °C [41]. Reproduced with permission from [41], American Chemical Society, 2019.
Figure 4. The effect of chitosan coating on the dissolution rate of amorphous IMC particles at 37 °C [41]. Reproduced with permission from [41], American Chemical Society, 2019.
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g004
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g005 550
Figure 5. (A) Visible absorption spectra of amorphous CFZ−PAA films at different drug loading. (B) λmax (wavelength of maximal absorption) vs. drug loading. The same color coding is used in (A,B). By extrapolation, the saturation drug loading is determined at 70% [64]. Reproduced with permission from [64], American Chemical Society, 2021.
Figure 5. (A) Visible absorption spectra of amorphous CFZ−PAA films at different drug loading. (B) λmax (wavelength of maximal absorption) vs. drug loading. The same color coding is used in (A,B). By extrapolation, the saturation drug loading is determined at 70% [64]. Reproduced with permission from [64], American Chemical Society, 2021.
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g005
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g006 550
Figure 6. Stability of amorphous drug–polymer salts at 40 °C/75% RH. (A) CFZ−PAA (75% drug loading) [64]. No crystallization was observed in 6 months, while the neutral CFZ−PVP and CFZ−PVP/VA dispersions at the same drug loading both crystallized. Reproduced with permission from [64], American Chemical Society, 2021. (B) LMF–PAA salt (50% drug loading) [65]. No crystallization was observed after 18 months for LMF–PAA, while the neutral LMF−PVP and partially ionized LMF−HPMCAS dispersions at the same drug loading both crystallized. Reproduced with permission from [65], Elsevier, 2021.
Figure 6. Stability of amorphous drug–polymer salts at 40 °C/75% RH. (A) CFZ−PAA (75% drug loading) [64]. No crystallization was observed in 6 months, while the neutral CFZ−PVP and CFZ−PVP/VA dispersions at the same drug loading both crystallized. Reproduced with permission from [64], American Chemical Society, 2021. (B) LMF–PAA salt (50% drug loading) [65]. No crystallization was observed after 18 months for LMF–PAA, while the neutral LMF−PVP and partially ionized LMF−HPMCAS dispersions at the same drug loading both crystallized. Reproduced with permission from [65], Elsevier, 2021.
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g006
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g007 550
Figure 7. Free-energy diagram for crystallization in an amorphous salt and a neutral ASD. A drug–polymer salt has lower free energy than a neutral ASD because of the strong ionic interactions, leading to a lower driving force for crystallization. The drug is assumed to be a base. The drawings on the bottom represent a neutral ASD, a drug–polymer salt, and the crystallized drug in a polymer matrix [65]. Reproduced with permission from [65], Elsevier, 2021.
Figure 7. Free-energy diagram for crystallization in an amorphous salt and a neutral ASD. A drug–polymer salt has lower free energy than a neutral ASD because of the strong ionic interactions, leading to a lower driving force for crystallization. The drug is assumed to be a base. The drawings on the bottom represent a neutral ASD, a drug–polymer salt, and the crystallized drug in a polymer matrix [65]. Reproduced with permission from [65], Elsevier, 2021.
Pharmaceutics 13 01271 g007
Table
Table 1. Examples of polyelectrolyte-coated amorphous drugs.
Table 1. Examples of polyelectrolyte-coated amorphous drugs.
DrugPolymerStability against CrystallizationOther Benefits Reference
Acids
IndomethacinPDDAStable at 40 °C/dry for 20 d, while uncoated sample fully crystallizedImproved flowability[38]
IndomethacinEudragit EPO (dry coating)Improved stability at 30 °C/23% or 42% RH, outperforming neutral polymer SoluplusNo tests performed[39]
IndomethacinGelatin A and BInhibited surface crystal growth at 40 °C/dryNo tests performed[40]
IndomethacinChitosan, gelatin A and BImproved stability at 40 °C/dry, 40 °C/75% RH, and 30 °C/75% RH; chitosan outperformed gelatinsImproved powder flow, tabletability, and wetting and dissolution[41]
Bases
ClofazimineAlginic acidStable at 90 °C/dry for 60 d, while the uncoated particles fully crystallized. Improved stability at 40 °C/75% RHImproved wetting and dissolution[42]
NifedipineGelatin A and BInhibited surface crystal growth at 40 °C/dryNo tests performed[40]
LoratadineDextran sulfate (DTS)Improved stability at 40 °C/dryNo tests performed[43]
Table
Table 2. Examples of amorphous drug–polymer salts.
Table 2. Examples of amorphous drug–polymer salts.
Drug, % LoadingPolymerSynthesis MethodPhysical StabilityOther Benefits Reference
Acids
Naproxen, 42%Eudragit EPO Hot melt extrusionStable at 20 °C/60%
RH for 12 mo.		Drug release triggered by inorganic salts[57]
Mefenamic acid, 24%Eudragit EPO, Eudragit L100Cryogenic grindingStable at 25 °C/75%
RH for 10 mo.		Extended supersaturation, enhanced dissolution[58]
Lapatinib, 40%
Gefitinib, 40%		PSSASolvent evaporation, cryogenic grindingStable at 40 °C/75%
RH for 6 mo.		Faster dissolution than crystalline form[59]
Indomethacin, 30%Eudragit EPOSolvent evaporation, cryogenic grindingStable at 40 °C/75% RH for 100 d. Neutral ADSs less stableEnhanced dissolution[60]
Bases
Pyrimethamine, Lamotrigine, Trimethoprim, <65%Polyacrylic acid (PAA)Melt quenchStable at 40 °C/75%
RH for 6 mo. Pure drugs, neutral ASDs less stable		Fast dissolution relative to the crystalline and persisting supersaturation[61]
Lumefantrine, 40%CAP, HPMCP, Eudragit L100Solvent evaporationStable at 40 °C/75%
RH for 6 mo. Neutral ASDs less stable		CAP dispersion shows slow dissolution; others perform better[62]
Clofazimine, 33–57% HPMCPSolvent evaporationNot performedNot performed[63]
Clofazimine, 75%PAASlurry conversionStable at 40 °C/75%
RH for 6 mo. Neutral ASDs less stable 		Improved flow, tabletability, wetting, and dissolution[64]
Lumefantrine, 50%PAASlurry conversionStable at 40 °C/75%
RH for 18 mo. Neutral ASDs less stable		Improved flow, tabletability, and dissolution[65]
Ciprofloxacin, 40% Eudragit LBall millingStable at 25 °C/90%
RH for 90 min.
Improved stability over pure drug at 40 °C/75% RH		Improved solubility and drug permeability, persistent supersaturation[66]
Ciprofloxacin, 80%DTSPrecipitation by mixing drug and polymer solutionsStable at 25 °C/55%
RH for 1 mo.		Improved dissolution and supersaturation [67]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yao, X.; Neusaenger, A.L.; Yu, L. Amorphous Drug-Polymer Salts. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 1271. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13081271

AMA Style

Yao X, Neusaenger AL, Yu L. Amorphous Drug-Polymer Salts. Pharmaceutics. 2021; 13(8):1271. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13081271

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yao, Xin, Amy Lan Neusaenger, and Lian Yu. 2021. "Amorphous Drug-Polymer Salts" Pharmaceutics 13, no. 8: 1271. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13081271

APA Style

Yao, X., Neusaenger, A. L., & Yu, L. (2021). Amorphous Drug-Polymer Salts. Pharmaceutics, 13(8), 1271. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13081271

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop