Improved Quality Control Metrics for Cascade Impaction Measurements of Orally Inhaled Drug Products (OIPs)

This study of aerodynamic mass-weighted particle size distribution (APSD) data from orally inhaled products (OIPs) investigated whether a set of simpler (than currently used) metrics may be adequate to detect changes in APSD for quality control (QC) purposes. A range of OIPs was examined, and correlations between mass median aerodynamic diameter and the ratio of large particle mass (LPM) to small particle mass (SPM) were calculated. For an Andersen cascade impactor, the LPM combines the mass associated with particle sizes from impactor stage 1 to a product-specific boundary size; SPM combines the mass of particles from that boundary through to terminal filter. The LPM–SPM boundary should be chosen during development based on the full-resolution impactor results so as to maximize the sensitivity of the LPM/SPM ratio to meaningful changes in quality. The LPM/SPM ratio along with the impactor-sized mass (ISM) are by themselves sufficient to detect changes in central tendency and area under the APSD curve, which are key in vitro quality attributes for OIPs. Compared to stage groupings, this two-metric approach provides better intrinsic precision, in part due to having adequate mass and consequently better ability to detect changes in APSD and ISM, suggesting that this approach should be a preferred QC tool. Another advantage is the possibility to obtain these metrics from the abbreviated impactor measurements (AIM) rather than from full-resolution multistage impactors. Although the boundary is product specific, the testing could be accomplished with a basic AIM system which can meet the needs of most or all OIPs.

[1]  Svetlana Lyapustina,et al.  Considerations for the development and practice of cascade impaction testing, including a mass balance failure investigation tree. , 2003, Journal of aerosol medicine : the official journal of the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine.

[2]  M. Nagel,et al.  The Abbreviated Impactor Measurement (AIM) Concept: Part II—Influence of Evaporation of a Volatile Component—Evaluation with a “Droplet-Producing” Pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler (pMDI)-Based Formulation Containing Ethanol as Cosolvent , 2009, AAPS PharmSciTech.

[3]  Svetlana Lyapustina,et al.  Product Quality Research Institute evaluation of cascade impactor profiles of pharmaceutical aerosols, part 1: Background for a statistical method , 2007, AAPS PharmSciTech.

[4]  M. Nagel,et al.  The Abbreviated Impactor Measurement (AIM) Concept: Part 1—Influence of Particle Bounce and Re-Entrainment—Evaluation with a “Dry” Pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler (pMDI)-Based Formulation , 2009, AAPS PharmSciTech.

[5]  Jolyon P. Mitchell,et al.  Aerodynamic particle size analysis of aerosols from pressurized metered-dose inhalers: Comparison of andersen 8-stage cascade impactor, next generation pharmaceutical impactor, and model 3321 aerodynamic particle sizer aerosol spectrometer , 2003, AAPS PharmSciTech.

[6]  L P Mercer,et al.  General model for nutritional responses of higher organisms. , 1975, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Jolyon Mitchell,et al.  Analysis of cascade impactor mass distributions. , 2005, Journal of aerosol medicine : the official journal of the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine.

[8]  Michael Hindle,et al.  Aerodynamic sizing of metered dose inhalers: an evaluation of the Andersen and Next Generation pharmaceutical impactors and their USP methods. , 2004, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[9]  K. Willeke,et al.  INERTIAL IMPACTORS: THEORY, DESIGN AND USE , 1976 .

[10]  2.9.18. PREPARATIONS FOR INHALATION: AERODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT OF FINE PARTICLES , 2004 .