Capsule-in-Capsule Technology - Pharmaceutical Technology

Latest Issue
PharmTech

Latest Issue
PharmTech Europe

Capsule-in-Capsule Technology
The author outlines how to choose carriers and capsule shells according to dosage requirements and intended use. This article is part of a special Drug Delivery issue.


Pharmaceutical Technology
pp. s26-s29

Materials

The author prepared a capsule-in-capsule system for investigation. Model compounds caffeine (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and nicotinamide (Sigma Aldrich) were chosen. PEG 6000 Ph. Eur. (BASF, Ludwigshafen, Germany), Gelucire 50/13 (Gattefossé, St-Priest France), and Labrafil (Gattefossé) were used as thermosoftening carriers.

Methods


Figure 4: Dissolution profiles for series 3 doses. The outer Labrafil (Gattefossé, St-Priest, France) capsule contained caffeine (caff.), and the inner Gelucire 50/13 (Gattefossé) capsule contained nicotinamide (nic.). Results after 0, 2, 3, and 5 months' storage are shown. (FIGURE IS COURTESY OF THE AUTHOR)
Trial formulations of model compounds caffeine and nicotinamide were prepared at bench-scale in the selected thermosoftening carriers, which are suited to liquid-filled hard capsules. Inner clear/clear size 2 gelatin capsules (Capsugel, Peapack, NJ) were filled manually at 300 mg to provide 5 mg of nicotinamide in PEG 6000 or in Gelucire 50/13. Filled capsules were banded with gelatine. A proportion of nicotinamide–PEG 6000 capsules was enteric-coated with Eudragit L100-55 (Röhm, Darmstadt, Germany) at 10 mg/cm2 using a Strea-1 coater (GEA Pharma Systems, Wommelgem, Belgium). These inner size 2 capsules, with or without enteric coat, were placed into size 0 capsules.

The second formulation was also filled into the size 0 capsules at the required fill weight to provide 5 mg of caffeine in, Labrafil and the capsules were sealed. Samples comprising nicotinamide–PEG 6000 and caffeine–Labrafil, nicotinamide–PEG 6000 enteric coated and caffeine–Labrafil, and nicotinamide–Gelucire 50/13 and caffeine–Labrafil were designated as series 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

Dissolution testing was carried out in European Pharmacopoeia Apparatus 2 (i.e., paddles), using 900 mL of dissolution medium, stirring at 100 rpm. Dissolution testing of series 1 and 3 samples used water as the dissolution medium. Testing of series 2 samples used 0.1N HCl for 2 h, followed by adjustment to pH 7.0 using NaOH. Release of each component was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography at 262 nm. Capsule integrity and dissolution profiles were monitored at time zero and after two, three, and five months' storage at 25 °C in glass bottles.

Figures 2, 3, and 4 show in vitro dissolution profiles for all series at 0, two, three, and five months. Series 1 represented a nominal fast–fast release profile. Series 2 represented a fast–enteric-coated–fast release profile. Series 3 represented a fast–slow release profile. The formulations were designed to represent differing formats using widely-accepted thermosoftening carriers. Here, PEG 6000 and Labrafil provided matrices considered suitable for fast release of each model compound. Gelucire 50/13 provided a matrix considered suitable for the slow release of nicotinamide. The three sample series demonstrated that differing in vitro release profiles could be achieved readily using the approach described here

It is important that the system show the potential for product stability, particularly in terms of consistent integrity of the double-capsule format and the required release profiles. Each sample series demonstrated continuing capsule integrity and dissolution stability over the five-month time period. This result was particularly important to the sample in which the inner capsule was enteric-coated because the formulation contained in the outer capsule could adversely affect the enteric coat of a coated inner capsule. In this example, Labrafil was compatible with the enteric coat. It is worth noting that another common liquid-fill carrier (i.e., Labrasol, Gattefosse) was incompatible with the coating agent used in this study.


ADVERTISEMENT

blog comments powered by Disqus
LCGC E-mail Newsletters

Subscribe: Click to learn more about the newsletter
| Weekly
| Monthly
|Monthly
| Weekly

Survey
What is the single greatest threat to maintaining manufacturing processes at your facility?
Quality issues
Facility/environment problems
Process development problems
Production equipment downtime
Raw material supply problems
Regulatory restrictions
Business decisions to limit production
Quality issues
67%
Facility/environment problems
0%
Process development problems
0%
Production equipment downtime
0%
Raw material supply problems
33%
Regulatory restrictions
0%
Business decisions to limit production
0%
View Results
UPCOMING CONFERENCES

Programs for Investigational and Pre-Launch Drugs
Philadelphia, PA
July 17-18, 2013
Request Brochure

Strategic Pipeline Planning & Portfolio Valuation
Philadelphia, PA
August 13-14, 2013
Request Brochure

MES 2013 - Forum on Manufacturing Execution Systems
Philadelphia, PA
August 14-15, 2013
Request Brochure

Mobile Innovation for the Life Sciences Industry
Philadelphia, PA
August 20-21, 2013
Request Brochure

See All Conferences >>

Eric Langer Outsourcing Outlook Eric LangerOutsourcing's Modest Role as a Cost-Containment Strategy
Patricia Van Arnum Ingredients Insider Patricia Van ArnumIntellectual Property Battles in Solid-State Chemistry
Nathan Jessop Industry Insider Nathan Jessop Campaign Against Counterfeit Drugs Continues
Lynn Torbeck Statistical Solutions Lynn D. TorbeckCompositing Samples and the Risk to Product Quality
 More
Patent Settlements Become More Risky
Praise and Perils for Biotechnology Patent Policy
Risk-Mitigation Strategies in Drug Manufacturing for Emerging Markets
Quality Focus: Ensuring Raw Material Transparency
Advertising of Prescription Drugs  Keeping it Honest and Balanced
Source: Pharmaceutical Technology,
Click here