Next Article in Journal
Quality by Design (QbD) Approach to Develop Colon-Specific Ketoprofen Hot-Melt Extruded Pellets: Impact of Eudragit® S 100 Coating on the In Vitro Drug Release
Previous Article in Journal
Self-Tumor Antigens in Solid Tumors Turned into Vaccines by α-gal Micelle Immunotherapy
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Investigation of the Impact of Manufacturing Methods on Protein-Based Long-Acting Injectable Formulations: A Comparative Assessment for Microfluidics vs. Conventional Methods

by
Nihan Yonet-Tanyeri
1,†,
Robert S. Parker
1,2,3,
Louis D. Falo, Jr.
2,4,5,6 and
Steven R. Little
1,2,4,5,7,8,9,*
1
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, 940 Benedum Hall, 3700 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
2
Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, 302 Benedum Hall, 3700 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
3
Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 3550 Terrace Street, Alan Magee Scaife Hall, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
4
Department of Clinical and Translational Science, University of Pittsburgh, Forbes Tower, Suite 7057, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
5
McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 450 Technology Drive, Suite 300, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, USA
6
Department of Dermatology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3708 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
7
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, 3501 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
8
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh, 203 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
9
Department of Immunology, University of Pittsburgh, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Current address: BioHybrid Solutions Holdings, Inc., 307 23rd St. Ext., Suite 150, Sharpsburg, PA 15215, USA.
Pharmaceutics 2024, 16(10), 1264; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics16101264
Submission received: 12 September 2024 / Revised: 25 September 2024 / Accepted: 26 September 2024 / Published: 27 September 2024

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Microparticle-based drug delivery systems offer several advantages for protein-based drug formulations, enhancing patient compliance and therapeutic efficiency through the sustained delivery of the active pharmaceutical ingredient. Over the past few decades, the microfluidics method has emerged as a continuous manufacturing process for preparing drug-encapsulating microparticles, mainly for small molecule drugs. However, comparative assessments for the conventional batch method vs. the microfluidics method for protein-based drug formulations have been lacking. The main objective of this study was to generate immunomodulatory protein drug-loaded injectable formulations using both conventional batch and microfluidics methods. Methods: Therefore, rhCCL22-loaded poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA) microparticles were prepared by conventional homogenization and microfluidics methods. Results: The resulting microparticles were analyzed comparatively, focusing on critical quality attributes such as microparticle size, size distribution, morphology, drug encapsulation efficiency, release kinetics, and batch-to-batch variations in relation to the manufacturing method. Our results demonstrated that the conventional method resulted in microparticles with denser surface porosity and wider size distribution as opposed to microparticles prepared by the microfluidics method, which could contribute to a significant difference in the drug-release kinetics. Additionally, our findings indicated minimal variation within batches for the microparticles prepared by the microfluidics method. Conclusion: Overall, this study highlights the comparative assessment of several critical quality attributes and batch variations associated with the manufacturing methods of protein-loaded microparticles which is crucial for ensuring consistency in efficacy, regulatory compliance, and quality control in the drug formulation manufacturing process.
Keywords: biologics; long-acting injectables; microparticles; protein-based drug formulations; microfluidics; drug delivery; biodegradable polymers; controlled drug release biologics; long-acting injectables; microparticles; protein-based drug formulations; microfluidics; drug delivery; biodegradable polymers; controlled drug release

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yonet-Tanyeri, N.; Parker, R.S.; Falo, L.D., Jr.; Little, S.R. Investigation of the Impact of Manufacturing Methods on Protein-Based Long-Acting Injectable Formulations: A Comparative Assessment for Microfluidics vs. Conventional Methods. Pharmaceutics 2024, 16, 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics16101264

AMA Style

Yonet-Tanyeri N, Parker RS, Falo LD Jr., Little SR. Investigation of the Impact of Manufacturing Methods on Protein-Based Long-Acting Injectable Formulations: A Comparative Assessment for Microfluidics vs. Conventional Methods. Pharmaceutics. 2024; 16(10):1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics16101264

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yonet-Tanyeri, Nihan, Robert S. Parker, Louis D. Falo, Jr., and Steven R. Little. 2024. "Investigation of the Impact of Manufacturing Methods on Protein-Based Long-Acting Injectable Formulations: A Comparative Assessment for Microfluidics vs. Conventional Methods" Pharmaceutics 16, no. 10: 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics16101264

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