Evaluation of Three Amorphous Drug Delivery Technologies to Improve the Oral Absorption of Flubendazole.

This study investigates 3 amorphous technologies to improve the dissolution rate and oral bioavailability of flubendazole (FLU). The selected approaches are (1) a standard spray-dried dispersion with hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) E5 or polyvinylpyrrolidone-vinyl acetate 64, both with Vitamin E d-α-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol succinate; (2) a modified process spray-dried dispersion (MPSDD) with either HPMC E3 or hydroxypropylmethylcellulose acetate succinate (HPMCAS-M); and (3) confining FLU in ordered mesoporous silica (OMS). The physicochemical stability and in vitro release of optimized formulations were evaluated following 2 weeks of open conditions at 25°C/60% relative humidity (RH) and 40°C/75% RH. All formulations remained amorphous at 25°C/60% RH. Only the MPSDD formulation containing HPMCAS-M and 3/7 (wt./wt.) FLU/OMS did not crystallize following 40°C/75% RH exposure. The OMS and MPSDD formulations contained the lowest and highest amount of hydrolyzed degradant, respectively. All formulations were dosed to rats at 20 mg/kg in suspension. One FLU/OMS formulation was also dosed as a capsule blend. Plasma concentration profiles were determined following a single dose. In vivo findings show that the OMS capsule and suspension resulted in the overall highest area under the curve and Cmax values, respectively. These results cross-evaluate various amorphous formulations and provide a link to enhanced biopharmaceutical performance.

Comparison of two methods for serotyping Ureaplasma urealyticum clinical isolates.

A newly developed enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method using monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) to the 14 serotypes of Ureaplasma urealyticum was compared to immunofluorescence assay (IFA) for serotyping U. urealyticum clinical isolates. Of the 102 vaginal isolates of U. urealyticum, five strains were lost and were excluded from analysis. Of the 97 strains analysed, a total of 86 (89%) strains were typeable by ELISA and a total of 89 (92%) strains were typeable by IFA. Eighty-six strains were typeable by both methods, three by IFA only and eight strains were not typeable neither by ELISA nor by IFA. Of the 86 strains typeable by both methods, complete concordance in serotyping results was found. The three strains not typeable by ELISA were typeable as serotype 4 by IFA. These three strains were reanalysed by ELISA after major modifications of the antigen preparation and were typeable as serotype 4. In conclusion, the ELISA was found suitable for serotyping clinical isolates. However, since the ELISA had a somewhat lower performance than IFA, strains not typeable by ELISA, should be retested by another technique such as IFA.