Cargando…

Comparative Assessment of In Vitro and In Silico Methods for Aerodynamic Characterization of Powders for Inhalation

In vitro assessment of dry powders for inhalation (DPIs) aerodynamic performance is an inevitable test in DPI development. However, contemporary trends in drug development also implicate the use of in silico methods, e.g., computational fluid dynamics (CFD) coupled with discrete phase modeling (DPM)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ignjatović, Jelisaveta, Šušteršič, Tijana, Bodić, Aleksandar, Cvijić, Sandra, Đuriš, Jelena, Rossi, Alessandra, Dobričić, Vladimir, Ibrić, Svetlana, Filipović, Nenad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8619946/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34834247
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13111831
_version_ 1784605106721783808
author Ignjatović, Jelisaveta
Šušteršič, Tijana
Bodić, Aleksandar
Cvijić, Sandra
Đuriš, Jelena
Rossi, Alessandra
Dobričić, Vladimir
Ibrić, Svetlana
Filipović, Nenad
author_facet Ignjatović, Jelisaveta
Šušteršič, Tijana
Bodić, Aleksandar
Cvijić, Sandra
Đuriš, Jelena
Rossi, Alessandra
Dobričić, Vladimir
Ibrić, Svetlana
Filipović, Nenad
author_sort Ignjatović, Jelisaveta
collection PubMed
description In vitro assessment of dry powders for inhalation (DPIs) aerodynamic performance is an inevitable test in DPI development. However, contemporary trends in drug development also implicate the use of in silico methods, e.g., computational fluid dynamics (CFD) coupled with discrete phase modeling (DPM). The aim of this study was to compare the designed CFD-DPM outcomes with the results of three in vitro methods for aerodynamic assessment of solid lipid microparticle DPIs. The model was able to simulate particle-to-wall sticking and estimate fractions of particles that stick or bounce off the inhaler’s wall; however, we observed notable differences between the in silico and in vitro results. The predicted emitted fractions (EFs) were comparable to the in vitro determined EFs, whereas the predicted fine particle fractions (FPFs) were generally lower than the corresponding in vitro values. In addition, CFD-DPM predicted higher mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) in comparison to the in vitro values. The outcomes of different in vitro methods also diverged, implying that these methods are not interchangeable. Overall, our results support the utility of CFD-DPM in the DPI development, but highlight the need for additional improvements in these models to capture all the key processes influencing aerodynamic performance of specific DPIs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8619946
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86199462021-11-27 Comparative Assessment of In Vitro and In Silico Methods for Aerodynamic Characterization of Powders for Inhalation Ignjatović, Jelisaveta Šušteršič, Tijana Bodić, Aleksandar Cvijić, Sandra Đuriš, Jelena Rossi, Alessandra Dobričić, Vladimir Ibrić, Svetlana Filipović, Nenad Pharmaceutics Article In vitro assessment of dry powders for inhalation (DPIs) aerodynamic performance is an inevitable test in DPI development. However, contemporary trends in drug development also implicate the use of in silico methods, e.g., computational fluid dynamics (CFD) coupled with discrete phase modeling (DPM). The aim of this study was to compare the designed CFD-DPM outcomes with the results of three in vitro methods for aerodynamic assessment of solid lipid microparticle DPIs. The model was able to simulate particle-to-wall sticking and estimate fractions of particles that stick or bounce off the inhaler’s wall; however, we observed notable differences between the in silico and in vitro results. The predicted emitted fractions (EFs) were comparable to the in vitro determined EFs, whereas the predicted fine particle fractions (FPFs) were generally lower than the corresponding in vitro values. In addition, CFD-DPM predicted higher mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) in comparison to the in vitro values. The outcomes of different in vitro methods also diverged, implying that these methods are not interchangeable. Overall, our results support the utility of CFD-DPM in the DPI development, but highlight the need for additional improvements in these models to capture all the key processes influencing aerodynamic performance of specific DPIs. MDPI 2021-11-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8619946/ /pubmed/34834247 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13111831 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Ignjatović, Jelisaveta
Šušteršič, Tijana
Bodić, Aleksandar
Cvijić, Sandra
Đuriš, Jelena
Rossi, Alessandra
Dobričić, Vladimir
Ibrić, Svetlana
Filipović, Nenad
Comparative Assessment of In Vitro and In Silico Methods for Aerodynamic Characterization of Powders for Inhalation
title Comparative Assessment of In Vitro and In Silico Methods for Aerodynamic Characterization of Powders for Inhalation
title_full Comparative Assessment of In Vitro and In Silico Methods for Aerodynamic Characterization of Powders for Inhalation
title_fullStr Comparative Assessment of In Vitro and In Silico Methods for Aerodynamic Characterization of Powders for Inhalation
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Assessment of In Vitro and In Silico Methods for Aerodynamic Characterization of Powders for Inhalation
title_short Comparative Assessment of In Vitro and In Silico Methods for Aerodynamic Characterization of Powders for Inhalation
title_sort comparative assessment of in vitro and in silico methods for aerodynamic characterization of powders for inhalation
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8619946/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34834247
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13111831
work_keys_str_mv AT ignjatovicjelisaveta comparativeassessmentofinvitroandinsilicomethodsforaerodynamiccharacterizationofpowdersforinhalation
AT sustersictijana comparativeassessmentofinvitroandinsilicomethodsforaerodynamiccharacterizationofpowdersforinhalation
AT bodicaleksandar comparativeassessmentofinvitroandinsilicomethodsforaerodynamiccharacterizationofpowdersforinhalation
AT cvijicsandra comparativeassessmentofinvitroandinsilicomethodsforaerodynamiccharacterizationofpowdersforinhalation
AT đurisjelena comparativeassessmentofinvitroandinsilicomethodsforaerodynamiccharacterizationofpowdersforinhalation
AT rossialessandra comparativeassessmentofinvitroandinsilicomethodsforaerodynamiccharacterizationofpowdersforinhalation
AT dobricicvladimir comparativeassessmentofinvitroandinsilicomethodsforaerodynamiccharacterizationofpowdersforinhalation
AT ibricsvetlana comparativeassessmentofinvitroandinsilicomethodsforaerodynamiccharacterizationofpowdersforinhalation
AT filipovicnenad comparativeassessmentofinvitroandinsilicomethodsforaerodynamiccharacterizationofpowdersforinhalation