In-vitro dissolution methods for controlled release parenterals and their applicability to drug-eluting stent testing
Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, ISSN: 0022-3573, Vol: 64, Issue: 7, Page: 969-985
2012
- 38Citations
- 84Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations38
- Citation Indexes38
- 38
- CrossRef33
- Captures84
- Readers84
- 84
Review Description
Objectives Dissolution testing is a powerful tool for the characterization of dosage form performance in vitro under standardized conditions. In spite of the increasing number of parenterally administered medicinal products, currently there are no compendial dissolution test methods designed especially for these types of dosage forms. In addition to classical drug delivery systems, drug/device combination products, such as drug-eluting stents, are being used increasingly. Key findings This review describes the current methods that are used most often for in-vitro dissolution testing of parenteral dosage forms, i.e. the 'sample and separate' methods, the 'dialysis' methods, and the 'flow-through' methods, with a special emphasis on whether these methods can be used for drug-eluting stent testing. In the light of current regulatory requirements and with the exploding costs of preclinical and clinical development, test systems that include biorelevant parameters and are predictive of in-vivo performance are increasingly important. Published attempts to take biorelevant conditions into consideration in the design of dissolution test apparatus developed for parenteral dosage forms, including a method that was designed to emulate the embedding and flow-conditions at the site of stent implantation, have been outlined in this review. Summary In spite of the large quantity of highly potent controlled release parenteral products marketed today, there is still a lack of suitable methods for in vitro dissolution testing for these dosage forms especially with regard to biorelevant testing conditions. For dosage forms implanted into tissues it seems of major importance to reproduce the transport forces which are predominant in vivo (diffusive versus convective) in the in-vitro experimental setup. © 2012 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84862193014&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7158.2011.01439.x; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22686343; https://academic.oup.com/jpp/article/64/7/969/6135319; https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7158.2011.01439.x; https://academic.oup.com/jpp/article-abstract/64/7/969/6135319?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know