Next Article in Journal
Dendrimers as Antiamyloid Agents
Next Article in Special Issue
Development of a Personalized Tumor Neoantigen Based Vaccine Formulation (FRAME-001) for Use in a Phase II Trial for the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Designer Functional Nanomedicine for Myocardial Repair by Regulating the Inflammatory Microenvironment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pharmaceutics
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/pharmaceutics14040759
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:
Communication

Radiolabeling Method for Lyophilizate for Dry Powder Inhalation Formulations

by
Kahori Miyamoto
†,
Tomomi Akita
† and
Chikamasa Yamashita
*
Department of Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tokyo University of Science, 2641 Yamazaki, Noda, Chiba 278-8510, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Pharmaceutics 2022, 14(4), 759; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14040759
Submission received: 9 March 2022 / Revised: 26 March 2022 / Accepted: 30 March 2022 / Published: 31 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Drug Formulation and Process Optimization)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Human lung deposition data is non-mandatory for drug approval but very useful for the development of orally inhaled drug products. Lung deposition of inhaled drugs can be quantified by radionuclide imaging, for which one of the first considerations is the method used to radiolabel formulations. In this study, we report the development of a radiolabeling method for lyophilizate for dry powder inhalation (LDPI) formulations. TechneCoatTM is one method that can radiolabel drug particles without using solvents. In this method, particles are radiolabeled with a dispersion of 99mTc-labeled nanoparticles called TechnegasTM. Because a LDPI formulation is not comprised of particles but is a lyophilized cake aerosolized by air impact, the TechneCoat method cannot be used for the radiolabeling of LDPI formulations. We therefore modified the TechneCoat apparatus so that LDPI formulations were not aerosolized by the Technegas flow. Radiolabeling using a modified TechneCoat apparatus was validated with model LDPI formulations of interferon alpha (IFN). IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled, IFN of 99mTc-labeled, and 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations showed similar behavior, and differences from IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations were within ±15% in aerodynamic particle size distribution measurement. Our radiolabeling method for LDPI formulations may be useful for the quantification of drug deposition in human lungs.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Pulmonary drug delivery in the form of dry powder inhaler (DPI) is attracting interest as a technique for both local and systemic application [1,2]. DPI is especially attractive for the systemic application of biopharmaceutics such as peptides and proteins because the lung provides an enormous surface area, a relatively low enzymatic milieu, and a rapid absorption route that bypasses first-pass metabolism [1,3,4,5]. We have studied a lyophilizate for a dry powder inhalation (LDPI) system [6,7,8] and reported that a LDPI system can deliver a peptide systemically [9]. The LDPI system is quite a unique inhalation system in that the LDPI formulation, a lyophilized cake, is aerosolized just upon inhalation. Due to the simple manufacturing process of lyophilization, LDPI systems have advantages such as the fact that drugs can be formulated to avoid high temperature or shear stress [9,10], and LDPI formulations can ensure high content uniformity even when drug content is low [11]. We have developed a method to evaluate LDPI formulations using in vitro and in vivo models [9,12]. To put a LDPI system into practical application, the remaining task is the development of a method to measure lung deposition. Aerodynamic particle size distribution affects the lung deposition of inhaled drug, and lung deposition relates to drug efficacy and patient response [13,14,15,16,17]. Thus, human lung deposition data enable a seamless transition between in vitro testing in the laboratory and pivotal clinical studies of efficacy and safety.
The lung deposition of an inhaled drug can be quantified by radionuclide imaging, for which one of the first considerations is the method used to radiolabel the formulation. Thus, we aimed to develop a radiolabeling method for LDPI formulations that can be used to quantify drug deposition in human lungs. The radioisotope 99mTc is most commonly used in the radiolabeling of drug formulations [18,19,20,21]. Among 99mTc-labeling methods, we focused on TechneCoatTM [22,23], which was developed for the dry labeling of DPI formulations. In the conventional radiolabeling method, 99mTc-pertechnetate is added to the drug powder in an organic or aqueous solvent [19,24]. However, the use of a solvent may change the particle size distribution of a DPI formulation [23,25]. In the TechneCoat method, drug particles of DPI are radiolabeled with a dispersion of 99mTc-labeled nanoparticles called TechnegasTM [26]. This dry labeling method can solve the above problem of the conventional method, but there is another problem in labeling LDPI formulations. Technegas is formed by heating sodium pertechnetate in a carbon crucible and is drawn out through drug particles by a vacuum pump. The particles are labeled by the Technegas stream. It is difficult to apply TechneCoat with no change to the LDPI system because the LDPI formulation consists not of particles but of a lyophilized cake that is aerosolized by air impact. Therefore, we modified the TechneCoat apparatus so that LDPI formulations are not aerosolized by the Technegas stream.
From the above, we decided to develop a 99mTc radiolabeling method for LDPI formulations using the modified TechneCoat apparatus in an effort to quantify the drug deposition in human lungs. In this study, we used LDPI formulations of interferon alpha (IFN) as model formulations because the LDPI system is expected to be used for the systemic application of biopharmaceutics such as peptides and proteins, and IFN is comparatively easy to obtain and to measure by commercial assay kit.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

IFN, L-phenylalanine (Phe), sodium pertechnetate, isotonic sodium chloride solution, Eagle’s minimal essential medium (MEM), l-glutamine, sodium bicarbonate, and bovine serum (BS) were all purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Glass vials on which alkali-elution prevention processing has been performed (2 mL, φ18 mm, height 28 mm) were purchased from Iwata Glass Industrial (Osaka, Japan). Rubber stoppers (F-15) were purchased from NIPRO (Osaka, Japan).

2.2. Preparation of Freeze-Dried Cake of IFN

A solution containing 80,000,000 IU/mL of IFN with 4 mg/mL of Phe was prepared. Then, 500 µL of the prepared solution was dispensed into each glass vial and lyophilized with a freeze dryer (Triomaster II, Kyowa Vacuum Engineering, Tokyo, Japan). The solution was frozen by holding shelf temperature at −50 °C for 3 h. For primary drying, shelf temperature was ramped at 0.06 °C/min and held at −30 °C for 6 h at a pressure of 20 Pa. For secondary drying, shelf temperature was ramped at 0.33 °C/min to 30 °C and then ramped at −0.08 °C/min and held at 25 °C for 0.5 h.

2.3. Radiolabeling of Freeze-Dried Cake by Modified TechneCoat Appartus

The TechneCoat apparatus (Pharmaceutical Profiles Ltd., Nottingham, UK) is a device developed for the physical adsorption of 99mTc to conventional inhalant forms of drugs with particle sizes of ≤5 μm adsorbed on lactose. LDPI, on the other hand, is a DPI in which the lyophilized cake is instantly microparticulated by the impact of air introduced during inhalation. Therefore, in order to physically adsorb 99mTc onto LDPI, it is necessary to radiolabel 99mTc into the matrix structure of the lyophilized cake while the lyophilized cake is not disintegrating. The usual TechneCoat apparatus uses 1.0 L/min as the flow rate of Technegas, but at this flow rate, the lyophilized cake collapses and 99mTc could not be physically adsorbed on the lyophilized cake. Therefore, to prevent the collapse of the lyophilized cake, the flow rate of Technegas was reduced to 0.7 L/min, and to ensure that Technegas flowed evenly throughout the lyophilized cake, as shown in Figure 1, a glass filter was placed on the top and bottom of the cake. By modifying the TechneCoat apparatus in this way, we succeeded in physically adsorbing 99mTc on LDPI while maintaining the features of LDPI.
A cotton wool plug was placed into a vial using tweezers, and then the vial was broken using a pipe cutter. The cotton wool plug was removed using tweezers with the vial upside down to prevent glass contamination of the lyophilizate. Then, the freeze-dried cake was recovered from the vial and was radiolabeled using the modified TechneCoat apparatus (Figure 1). Technegas (produced using 1 simmer) was pulled through the apparatus at 0.7 L/min using a vacuum pump for 10 min. After 10 min, the lyophilizate was transferred into an empty vial. The amount of radioactivity used varied between 1 and 13 MBq.

2.4. Quantification of IFN by Immunoassay

IFN was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using a VeriKine Human IFN-α ELISA kit (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA).

2.5. Counting Method for Radiolabeling of 99mTc

The level of radioactivity was measured using a gamma camera (110, Technicare, Cleveland, OH, USA) fitted with a low-energy collimator on the 99mTc channel.

2.6. Emitted Dose Test for LDPI Formulations of IFN

An emitted dose (ED) test was performed based on the uniformity of delivered dose test as described for inhalation powders in the European Pharmacopoeia (EP). The LDPI formulation including the device (Otsuka, Tokyo, Japan) was connected to the ED apparatus by means of an inlet adaptor. Air was drawn down through the apparatus at a set flow rate of 50 L/min with pressure drop at 4 kPa using a vacuum pump (HCP5, Copley Scientific Limited, Nottingham, UK) for 4.8 s with the flow rate being monitored and controlled with a critical flow controller (TPK2000), and flow meter (DFM2000) (both from Copley Scientific Limited). After a single dose was discharged, the apparatus was washed out with 5% BS-MEM solution for quantification of IFN. The test was repeated in triplicate. ED% was defined as the proportion of IFN content collected from the ED apparatus to IFN content of the formulations.

2.7. Measurement Method for Aerodynamic Particle Size Distribution of IFN and Radiolabel

Aerodynamic particle size distribution of LDPI formulations was measured according to the EP <2.9.18> Apparatus C—Multi-stage liquid impinger (MSLI) procedure for powder inhalers. As with the ED test, air was drawn down through the apparatus at a set flow rate of 50 L/min with pressure drop at 4 kPa for 4.8 s. Preparation of sample solutions for IFN determination was also performed in the same way as for the ED test. When measuring radioactivity level, apparatus imaging was performed before rinsing out. The test was repeated in triplicate. Fine particle fraction (FPF) was defined as the proportion of fine particle dose (FPD) to ED. FPD, with a mass of IFN of less than 5 μm, was calculated according to the EP. Effective cut-off diameters for stages 2, 3, and 4 were 14.2, 7.4, and 3.4 μm, respectively, at a flow rate of 50 L/min. MSLI stages are grouped into the following four stages: (1) Vial, Device, and Induction port; (2) Stages 1 and 2; (3) Stage 3; (4) Stages 4 and 5. The ratio to unlabeled drug of labeled drug or radiolabel in each group was calculated.

3. Results

3.1. Validation of the Lyophilizate Transfer Process

First, we confirmed that the lyophilizate transfer process does not affect the performance of the LDPI formulations. The lyophilized cake was transferred according to the radiolabeling method described in Section 2.3 but was not labeled. Then, the ED test and measurement of aerodynamic particle size distribution were performed. The results of the emitted test for intact and transferred cake were very similar (Figure 2). The aerodynamic particle size distributions of intact and transferred cake were also very similar (Figure 3). These data indicate that the process of transferring the lyophilized cake does not adversely affect the performance of the LDPI formulations.

3.2. Validation of Radiolabeling Method for LDPI Formulations

Since IFN cannot be measured during gamma scintigraphy performed on humans, measuring 99mTc as a surrogate for IFN with a gamma camera is needed. To use 99mTc as a surrogate marker, it is also important that the behavior of IFN measured by ELISA in 99mTc-unlabeled and 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations match. Therefore, we compared the three formulations of IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations, IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations, and 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations, and confirmed whether the intrapulmonary distribution could be estimated using 99mTc as a surrogate marker.
The performance of LDPI formulations was compared between IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled and labeled LDPI formulations. There was no significant difference in the results of the ED test between IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled and labeled LDPI formulations (Figure 4). The aerodynamic particle size distributions of IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled, IFN of 99mTc-labeled, and 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations were very similar (Figure 5). The 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations slightly underestimated drug deposition in stage 2, but the difference was quite small and was not considered significant.
The mean ratio of IFN of 99mTc-labeled or the 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations per group of MSLI stages to the IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations is shown in Figure 6. The mean ratio was within the range 0.85–1.18. Moreover, 90% confidence intervals (CI) ranged roughly from 0.85 to 1.18. Only the 90% CI of the 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations in group 1 was slightly over 1.18. Although the radiolabel in group 1 may have been overestimated, IFN of 99mTc-labeled or 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations deposited in each part of group 1 was low, and the absolute difference in the proportion between IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled and 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations was sufficiently small (within ±2%). In addition, group 1, comprising the sum of vial, device, and induction port, is not important for lung deposition measurement because the proportion in group 1 corresponds to extrapulmonary parts. These data indicate that the radiolabeling process does not adversely affect the performance of the LDPI formulations. It became clear that 99mTc can be used as a surrogate marker.

4. Discussion

Human lung deposition data is non-mandatory for drug approval but very useful for the development of DPI. These data enable a seamless transition between in vitro testing in the laboratory and pivotal clinical studies of efficacy and safety [15]. Lung deposition data can also be used for the comparison between formulations with different inhalation devices [27]. The radionuclide imaging method is commonly used to determine the lung deposition of an inhaled drug, and when the method is performed, the radiolabeling method also needs to be considered. The requirement for the radiolabeling method of DPI formulations is that the un-radiolabeled formulation which measures the main drug at the time of evaluation, the radiolabeled formulation which measures the main drug at the time of evaluation, and the radiolabeled formulation which measured the radiolabel as a surrogate marker, show the same behavior.
Prior to the comparison of drug behavior, we validated the transfer process of the lyophilized cake. DPI formulations are commonly prepared as particles and particles are filled in a container. However, the LDPI formulation is a lyophilized cake within the vial itself, and the lyophilizate is aerosolized by convection flow of air in the vial just upon inhalation. Hence, there was a concern that the transfer process might change the aerosolization performance of LDPI formulations. However, no significant differences in ED and aerodynamic particle size distribution were shown between the intact and transferred lyophilizate (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The effect of the lyophilizate transfer process on the aerosolization performance of LDPI formulations was considered to be negligible.
Then, the labeling process by Technegas stream was validated. The acceptance criterion for radiolabeling methods that the FPF ratio of radiolabel to unlabeled drug should be within the range 0.8–1.2 was used [18,20,28]. LDPI formulations radiolabeled by our method using the modified TechneCoat apparatus met the above criterion (Figure 6). More strict criteria are recommended in some publications, including the European Medicines Agency (EMA) guideline [18,29,30]. For example, Devadason et al. [18] proposed the following acceptance criteria: If regional lung deposition is to be quantified, the mean ratio of radiolabeled drug/the radiotracer per impactor stage, or group of impactor stages, to the reference drug should be within 0.85–1.18. As shown in Figure 6, the LDPI formulations radiolabeled by our method also met these strict criteria. Moreover, 90% CIs ranged roughly from 0.85 to 1.18 except for 99 mTc of 99 mTc-labeled LDPI formulations group 1. The 90% CI of 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations group 1 was slightly over 1.18, but the difference between IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled and 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations in group 1 was considered to be negligibly small. From the above, we considered that IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations were equivalent to IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations and that the aerodynamic particle size distributions of the drug and 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations were equivalent.
Whether the radioactivity is sufficient for use in a clinical study also requires consideration. Because LDPI formulations are aerosolized by air impact, the flow rate of Technegas in our radiolabeling method is very low so that the lyophilizate is not aerosolized by the Technegas stream. The amount of radioactivity used in this study varied between 1 and 13 MBq, and the range of radioactivity used in a clinical study would be 1 to 10 MBq [23,31,32,33]. It is thus expected that the radioactivity obtained by our radiolabeling method is adequate to perform clinical studies involving lung drug deposition.

5. Conclusions

We developed a radiolabeling method for LDPI formulations using a modified TechneCoat apparatus in this study. IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations, IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations, and 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations showed quite similar aerodynamic particle size distributions. Differences in each IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulation and 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations from IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations were within ±15%, the acceptance criteria stated in the EMA guideline. It is expected that our radiolabeling method for LDPI formulations can be used for the quantification of drug deposition in human lungs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.Y.; methodology, C.Y.; validation, K.M. and T.A.; formal analysis, K.M. and T.A.; investigation, K.M. and T.A.; data curation, K.M.; writing—original draft preparation, K.M.; writing—review and editing, T.A.; visualization, K.M. and T.A.; supervision, C.Y.; project administration, C.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Pharmaceutical Profiles Ltd. and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. for their technical assistance with the experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Patton, J.S.; Byron, P.R. Inhaling medicines: Delivering drugs to the body through the lungs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2007, 6, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sahane, S.; Nikhar, A.; Bhaskaran, S.; Mundhada, D. Dry powder inhaler: An advance technique for pulmonary drug delivery system. Int. J. Pharm. Chem. Sci. 2012, 1, 1376–1383. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bajracharya, R.; Song, J.G.; Back, S.Y.; Han, H.-K. Recent advancements in non-invasive formulations for protein drug delivery. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2019, 17, 1290–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pandaya, S.; Misra, A. Inhalable glucagon-like peptide 1 porous particles prepared by spray freeze drying technique. J. Aerosol Med. Pulm. Drug Deliv. 2016, 29, A16. [Google Scholar]
  5. Owens, D.R. New horizons—Alternative routes for insulin therapy. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2002, 1, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yamashita, C.; Ibaragi, S.; Fukunaga, Y.; Akagi, A. Composition, Vessel, Dry Powder Inhalation System, and Related Methods for Transpulmonary Administration. U.S. Patent 7448379, 11 November 2008. [Google Scholar]
  7. Yamashita, C.; Matsushita, H.; Ibaragi, S.; Akagi, A. Inhalation Device for Transpulmonary Administration. U.S. Patent 7708014, 4 May 2010. [Google Scholar]
  8. Yamashita, C.; Fukunaga, Y.; Akagi, A. Dry Powder Inhalation System for Transpulmonary Administration. U.S. Patent 7735485, 15 June 2010. [Google Scholar]
  9. Miyamoto, K.; Ishibashi, Y.; Akita, T.; Yamashita, C. Systemic delivery of hGhrelin derivative by lyophilizate for dry powder inhalation system in monkeys. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ohori, R.; Kiuchi, S.; Sugiyama, S.; Miyamoto, K.; Akita, T.; Yamashita, C. Efficient optimization of high-dose formulation of novel lyophilizates for dry powder inhalation by the combination of response surface methodology and time-of-flight measurement. Int. J. Pharm. 2020, 581, 119255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Miyamoto, K.; Yanagisawa, M.; Taga, H.; Yamaji, H.; Akita, T.; Yamashita, C. Optimization of very low-dose formulation of vitamin D3 with lyophilizate for dry powder inhalation system by simple method based on time-of-flight theory. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Miyamoto, K.; Taga, H.; Akita, T.; Yamashita, C. Simple method to measure the aerodynamic size distribution of porous particles generated on lyophilizate for dry powder inhalation. Pharmaceutics 2020, 12, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Labiris, N.R.; Dolovich, M.B. Pulmonary drug delivery. Part I: Physiological factors affecting therapeutic effectiveness of aerosolized medications. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2003, 56, 588–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bondesson, E.; Bengtsson, T.; Borgström, L.; Nilsson, L.-E.; Norrgren, K.; Trofast, E.; Wollmer, P. Planar gamma scintigraphy—Points to consider when quantifying pulmonary dry powder aerosol deposition. Int. J. Pharm. 2003, 251, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Newman, S.P.; Wilding, I.R.; Hirst, P.H. Human lung deposition data: The bridge between in vitro and clinical evaluations for inhaled drug products? Int. J. Pharm. 2000, 208, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Groneberg, D.A.; Witt, C.; Wagner, U.; Chung, K.F.; Fischer, A. Fundamentals of pulmonary drug delivery. Respir. Med. 2003, 97, 382–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Newman, S.P. Can lung deposition data act as a surrogate for the clinical response to inhaled asthma drugs? Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2000, 49, 529–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Devadason, S.G.; Chan, H.-K.; Haeussermann, S.; Kietzig, C.; Kuehl, P.J.; Newman, S.; Sommerer, K.; Taylor, G. Validation of radiolabeling of drug formulations for aerosol deposition assessment of orally inhaled products. J. Aerosol Med. Pulm. Drug Deliv. 2012, 25, S-6–S-9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Newman, S.P. Characteristics of radiolabelled versus unlabelled inhaler formulations. J. Aerosol Med. 1996, 9 (Suppl. 1), S37–S47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Snell, N.J.; Ganderton, D. Assessing lung deposition of inhaled medications. Consensus statement from a workshop of the british association for lung research, Held at the Institute of Biology, London, U.K. on 17 April 1998. Respir. Med. 1999, 93, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Scheuch, G.; Bennett, W.; Borgström, L.; Clark, A.; Dalby, R.; Dolovich, M.; Fleming, J.; Gehr, P.; Gonda, I.; O’Callaghan, C.; et al. Deposition, imaging, and clearance: What remains to be done? J. Aerosol Med. Pulm. Drug Deliv. 2010, 23, S-39–S-57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pitcairn, G.R. Dry Powder Compositions Comprising Labelled Particles for Inhalation. Patent WO-02/074348, 26 September 2002. [Google Scholar]
  23. Newman, S.P.; Pitcairn, G.R.; Hirst, P.H.; Rankin, L. Radionuclide imaging technologies and their use in evaluating asthma drug deposition in the lungs. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2003, 55, 851–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stass, H.; Nagelschmitz, J.; Kappeler, D.; Sommerer, K.; Kietzig, C.; Weimann, B. Ciprofloxacin dry powder for inhalation in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and in healthy volunteers. J. Aerosol Med. Pulm. Drug Deliv. 2017, 30, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Newman, S.P.; Pitcairn, G.R.; Hirst, P.H.; Bacon, R.E.; O’Keefe, E.; Reiners, M.; Hermann, R. Scintigraphic comparison of budesonide deposition from two dry powder inhalers. Eur. Respir. J. 2000, 16, 178–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Senden, T.J.; Moock, K.H.; Gerald, J.F.; Burch, W.M.; Browitt, R.J.; Ling, C.D.; Heath, G.A. The physical and chemical nature of technegas. J. Nucl. Med. 1997, 38, 1327–1333. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Longest, P.W.; Tian, G.; Walenga, R.L.; Hindle, M. Comparing MDI and DPI aerosol deposition using in vitro experiments and a new stochastic individual path (SIP) model of the conducting airways. Pharm. Res. 2012, 29, 1670–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Dolovich, M. In vitro measurements of delivery of medications from MDIs and spacer devices. J. Aerosol Med. 1996, 9, S-49–S-58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Evans, C.; Cipolla, D.; Chesworth, T.; Agurell, E.; Ahrens, R.; Conner, D.; Dissanayake, S.; Dolovich, M.; Doub, W.; Fuglsang, A.; et al. Equivalence considerations for orally inhaled products for local action—ISAM/IPAC-RS European Workshop Report. J. Aerosol Med. Pulm. Drug Deliv. 2012, 25, 117–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. European Medicines Agency Guideline on the Requirements for Clinical Documentation Orally Inhaled Products (OIP) Including the Requirements Demonstration of Therapeutic Equivalence between Two Use in Treatment Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in Adults and for Use in the Treatment of Asthma in Children and Adolescents. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/requirements-clinical-documentation-orally-inhaled-products-oip-including-requirements-demonstration (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  31. Biddiscombe, M.F.; Meah, S.N.; Underwood, S.R.; Usmani, O.S. Comparing lung regions of interest in gamma scintigraphy for assessing inhaled therapeutic aerosol deposition. J. Aerosol Med. Pulm. Drug Deliv. 2011, 24, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Newman, S.P.; Pitcairn, G.R.; Hirst, P.H. A brief history of gamma scintigraphy. J. Aerosol Med. 2001, 14, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Borgström, L.; Newman, S.; Weisz, A.; Morén, F. Pulmonary deposition of inhaled terbutaline: Comparison of scanning gamma camera and urinary excretion methods. J. Pharm. Sci. 1992, 81, 753–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pharmaceutics 14 00759 g001 550
Figure 1. Method for radiolabeling of freeze-dried cake by modified TechneCoat apparatus. The apparatus consists of two small crucibles and a Y-piece. The lyophilized cake is recovered from the vial and placed onto the sinter of the bottom crucible. The top crucible is then sealed on top of this, and the Y-piece (with one end sealed and one end having a Technegas connection) is added. Technegas (produced using 1 simmer) is pulled through the apparatus at 0.7 L/min using a vacuum pump for 10 min, with the flow rate being monitored and controlled with the flow meter and valve.
Figure 1. Method for radiolabeling of freeze-dried cake by modified TechneCoat apparatus. The apparatus consists of two small crucibles and a Y-piece. The lyophilized cake is recovered from the vial and placed onto the sinter of the bottom crucible. The top crucible is then sealed on top of this, and the Y-piece (with one end sealed and one end having a Technegas connection) is added. Technegas (produced using 1 simmer) is pulled through the apparatus at 0.7 L/min using a vacuum pump for 10 min, with the flow rate being monitored and controlled with the flow meter and valve.
Pharmaceutics 14 00759 g001
Pharmaceutics 14 00759 g002 550
Figure 2. Results of emitted dose (ED) test for 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations before and after the transfer process (mean ± SE, n = 3). ED% of LDPI formulations containing 40,000,000 IU/vial of IFN showed no significant change when the lyophilized cake was transferred into another vial.
Figure 2. Results of emitted dose (ED) test for 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations before and after the transfer process (mean ± SE, n = 3). ED% of LDPI formulations containing 40,000,000 IU/vial of IFN showed no significant change when the lyophilized cake was transferred into another vial.
Pharmaceutics 14 00759 g002
Pharmaceutics 14 00759 g003 550
Figure 3. Aerodynamic particle size distribution of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations before and after the transfer process (mean ± SE, n = 3). No significant change in aerodynamic particle size distributions of the LDPI formulations containing 40,000,000 IU/vial of IFN was shown when the lyophilized cake was transferred into another vial.
Figure 3. Aerodynamic particle size distribution of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations before and after the transfer process (mean ± SE, n = 3). No significant change in aerodynamic particle size distributions of the LDPI formulations containing 40,000,000 IU/vial of IFN was shown when the lyophilized cake was transferred into another vial.
Pharmaceutics 14 00759 g003
Pharmaceutics 14 00759 g004 550
Figure 4. Results of emitted dose (ED) test for IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled and labeled LDPI formulations (mean ± SE, n = 3). ED% of LDPI formulations containing 40,000,000 IU/vial of IFN showed no significant change when the lyophilized cake was radiolabeled. IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are unlabeled with 99mTc, and IFN was measured by ELISA. IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are labeled with 99mTc and IFN was measured by ELISA.
Figure 4. Results of emitted dose (ED) test for IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled and labeled LDPI formulations (mean ± SE, n = 3). ED% of LDPI formulations containing 40,000,000 IU/vial of IFN showed no significant change when the lyophilized cake was radiolabeled. IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are unlabeled with 99mTc, and IFN was measured by ELISA. IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are labeled with 99mTc and IFN was measured by ELISA.
Pharmaceutics 14 00759 g004
Pharmaceutics 14 00759 g005 550
Figure 5. Aerodynamic particle size distribution of IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations, IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations, and 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations (mean ± SE, n = 3). IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations, IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations, and 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations showed similar aerodynamic particle size distribution. LDPI formulations containing 40,000,000 IU/vial of IFN were used. IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are unlabeled with 99mTc, and IFN was measured by ELISA. IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are labeled with 99mTc and IFN was measured by ELISA. 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are labeled with 99mTc and 99mTc was measured by gamma camera as a surrogate for IFN.
Figure 5. Aerodynamic particle size distribution of IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations, IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations, and 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations (mean ± SE, n = 3). IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations, IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations, and 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations showed similar aerodynamic particle size distribution. LDPI formulations containing 40,000,000 IU/vial of IFN were used. IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are unlabeled with 99mTc, and IFN was measured by ELISA. IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are labeled with 99mTc and IFN was measured by ELISA. 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are labeled with 99mTc and 99mTc was measured by gamma camera as a surrogate for IFN.
Pharmaceutics 14 00759 g005
Pharmaceutics 14 00759 g006 550
Figure 6. Ratio to IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations of IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations or 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations per group of MSLI stages (mean ± 90% CI, n = 3). The mean ratio of IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations or the 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations per group of MSLI stages to the IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations was within the range of 0.85–1.18. LDPI formulations containing 40,000,000 IU/vial of IFN were used. The gray box indicates the range 0.8–1.2, which has been used as the acceptance criteria for radiolabeling methods. The blue line indicates the range 0.85–1.18, which was recently proposed as the acceptance criteria. Group 1: Vial, device, and induction port, 2: Stages 1 and 2, 3: Stage 3, 4: Stages 4 and 5. IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are unlabeled with 99mTc, and IFN was measured by ELISA. IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are labeled with 99mTc and IFN was measured by ELISA. 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are labeled with 99mTc and 99mTc was measured by gamma camera as a surrogate for IFN.
Figure 6. Ratio to IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations of IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations or 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations per group of MSLI stages (mean ± 90% CI, n = 3). The mean ratio of IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations or the 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations per group of MSLI stages to the IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations was within the range of 0.85–1.18. LDPI formulations containing 40,000,000 IU/vial of IFN were used. The gray box indicates the range 0.8–1.2, which has been used as the acceptance criteria for radiolabeling methods. The blue line indicates the range 0.85–1.18, which was recently proposed as the acceptance criteria. Group 1: Vial, device, and induction port, 2: Stages 1 and 2, 3: Stage 3, 4: Stages 4 and 5. IFN of 99mTc-unlabeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are unlabeled with 99mTc, and IFN was measured by ELISA. IFN of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are labeled with 99mTc and IFN was measured by ELISA. 99mTc of 99mTc-labeled LDPI formulations are LDPIs that are labeled with 99mTc and 99mTc was measured by gamma camera as a surrogate for IFN.
Pharmaceutics 14 00759 g006
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Miyamoto, K.; Akita, T.; Yamashita, C. Radiolabeling Method for Lyophilizate for Dry Powder Inhalation Formulations. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 759. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14040759

AMA Style

Miyamoto K, Akita T, Yamashita C. Radiolabeling Method for Lyophilizate for Dry Powder Inhalation Formulations. Pharmaceutics. 2022; 14(4):759. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14040759

Chicago/Turabian Style

Miyamoto, Kahori, Tomomi Akita, and Chikamasa Yamashita. 2022. "Radiolabeling Method for Lyophilizate for Dry Powder Inhalation Formulations" Pharmaceutics 14, no. 4: 759. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14040759

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