Paper page

Original: publisher page

Grace A. Ilevbare, Haoyu Liu, Kevin J. Edgar, Lynne S. Taylor* · Crystal Growth & Design 12, 3133-3143 (2012)

Understanding Polymer Properties Important for Crystal Growth Inhibition—Impact of Chemically Diverse Polymers on Solution Crystal Growth of Ritonavir

At the same very low concentration of 5 µg/mL, 34 polymers slowed the seeded growth of ritonavir crystals by anything from nothing to about threefold, and the authors trace good inhibition mainly to a moderate polymer hydrophobicity, helped by a semirigid cellulose backbone and ionized carboxyl groups.

Abbreviations

RTV ritonavir; S supersaturation (c/c*); Rg0, Rgp initial crystal growth rate without and with polymer; Rg0/Rgp effectiveness ratio; SP solubility parameter (Fedors, MPa^1/2); DS degree of substitution; DS (CO2H) DS of carboxyl-bearing substituents (adipate, suberate, sebacate); AGU anhydroglucose unit; Mn number-average molecular weight; DP degree of polymerization; HBA, HBD hydrogen bond acceptors, donors per monomer; OPLS-DA orthogonal projections to latent structures discriminant analysis; BFDH Bravais-Friedel-Donnay-Harker morphology; PLM polarized light microscopy; Adp adipate, Sub suberate, Seb sebacate; CA, CP, CAP, CAB cellulose acetate, propionate, acetate propionate, acetate butyrate; polymer abbreviations as in Tables 1 and 2 (for example Pn-IPAAmd poly(N-isopropylacrylamide), PVPVA poly(vinylpyrrolidone vinyl acetate), HPMCAS hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose acetate succinate).

Story. Why they did it → how → what they found → how it fits together → what is left. Each part opens with the short version; "More detail" under it gives the full account. Grey ids open the evidence behind a sentence.

View
Question

Which polymer properties make a polymer an effective inhibitor of ritonavir crystal growth from a supersaturated solution?

Short answer

Mainly moderate hydrophobicity: among 14 new cellulose esters, those with a solubility parameter of 20.56–23.28 MPa^1/2 slowed growth 1.6- to 3-fold (one exception) while the more hydrophobic ones did nothing, and the solubility parameter led a multivariate model; backbone rigidity and ionized carboxyl groups are proposed as further factors but were not measured. ····

Conclusion

For ritonavir growing on form II seeds at S 7.6, pH 6.8 and 37 °C with polymer at 5 µg/mL, polymers differed widely: Pn-IPAAmd (3.25), CAP Adp 0.85 (2.98), CAB Adp 0.81 (2.70) and HPMCAS (about 2.5) slowed growth most, most synthetic polymers had little effect, and the authors find it "clearly important" to consider growth inhibition when choosing a polymer for a supersaturating dosage form. ···· The polymers left the solubility unchanged, so the differences are taken as kinetic. ·· The authors attribute the general advantage of the cellulose derivatives to moderate hydrophobicity, a semirigid backbone and amphiphilicity from ionized carboxyl groups, factors "likely" to promote adsorption on the crystal surface, and the multivariate analysis "indicated" hydrophobicity as the most important property. ·· For the best inhibitor, Pn-IPAAmd, hydrophobicity is not enough; the authors "speculate" that it hydrogen-bonds to the fast-growing faces, in line with the shorter, wider crystals grown in its presence. ·· Polymer adsorption, chain rigidity and hydrogen bonding at the crystal surface, on which these explanations rest, were not measured. ··

01Why this study

Known 1Supersaturation pays only if it lasts

Amorphous forms give supersaturated solutions that can raise absorption, but crystallization can erase the gain, so an effective growth inhibitor in solution is wanted.

Kwong 2011, ref 2; Warren 2010, ref 39

Known 2Small amounts of polymer change nucleation and growth

PVP, PEG and HPMC are known inhibitors, but their effect on growth itself has rarely been quantified.

Alonzo 2012, ref 4; refs 5–16

Known 3Adsorption comes first

A polymer must adsorb on the crystal and block growth sites; hydrophobicity, charge and hydrogen bonding drive adsorption.

Mullin 2001, ref 17; Hasegawa 1988, ref 18 ··

Known 4Adsorption is face-selective

Polymers that slow fast-growing faces change crystal habit, as HPC and HPMC did for siramesine.

Zimmermann 2009, ref 5 ·

Gap → this paperWhich polymer properties decide how well a polymer inhibits the growth of a given drug?
More detail

What was already known. The introduction builds on these points (references are numbered in the paper):

  • Supersaturating forms need protection from crystallization. Poorly soluble candidates are increasingly given as amorphous forms that generate supersaturated solutions; bioavailability improves only if the high concentration lasts long enough for absorption, so the rate of crystallization decides whether such a dosage form succeeds. (Stegeman 2007, ref 1; Kwong 2011, ref 2; Bollag 2010, ref 3; Warren 2010, ref 39) ·
  • Polymers act on nucleation, growth and habit. Even very low concentrations of a polymer can substantially change nucleation and growth rates and crystal morphology (Alonzo 2012, ref 4; Zimmermann 2009, ref 5; Lechuga-Ballesteros 1995, refs 6, 7). PVP (refs 8–13), PEG (refs 14, 15) and HPMC (refs 9, 10, 13–16) have been tested, but most work identified stabilizing polymers without quantifying their effect on the nucleation and growth steps.
  • Adsorption is required. There is a general consensus that the additive must adsorb on the crystal surface (Mullin 2001, ref 17). Hasegawa et al. found adsorption of carboxymethylethyl cellulose on nifedipine crystals to be the most important factor, the adsorbed polymer occupying growth sites as a mechanical barrier (Hasegawa 1988, ref 18). ·
  • What drives adsorption. Adsorption can be physical (van der Waals and electrostatic forces, usually reversible) or chemical (covalent, usually irreversible); hydrophobicity (refs 20, 21), electrostatic interaction (refs 22, 23) and hydrogen bonding (refs 16, 19, 24) contribute to it (Somasundaran 1997, ref 19).
  • Adsorption is face-selective. Molecular crystals are anisotropic, so polymers adsorb unevenly and can change crystal habit when they slow fast-growing faces; HPC and HPMC each changed siramesine hydrochloride morphology, which was dominated by the faces they adsorbed on (Zimmermann 2009, ref 5; refs 25, 26). ·
  • Ritonavir is a slow crystallizer. It is poorly water-soluble with a relatively slow crystallization tendency (Baird 2010, ref 27).
  • Cellulose derivatives are promising and tunable. Cellulosics are chemically modifiable and biocompatible, some stabilize amorphous drug (Posey-Dowty 2007, ref 28), and cellulose adipates were designed for amorphous dispersions (Leuner 2000, ref 29; Kar 2011, ref 30): the adipate chain adds hydrophobicity, its terminal carboxyl ionizes at intestinal pH, and the DS of each substituent strongly changes the properties (Edgar 2001, ref 31). ··

What the paper set out to do. Quantify how much a set of chemically diverse polymers slows ritonavir crystal growth from a highly supersaturated solution, by adding seed crystals to solutions of known supersaturation with and without predissolved polymer, and identify the polymer properties that matter. The working hypothesis was that only polymers with a certain level of hydrophobicity would inhibit the growth of the hydrophobic ritonavir.

02How they approached it

One drug, one supersaturation (S 7.6), one polymer concentration (5 µg/mL) and many polymers. Fourteen new cellulose esters vary hydrophobicity (SP) and carboxyl content (DS (CO2H)) within one chemical family; 20 commercial polymers, synthetic and cellulose-based, widen the chemistry. A solubility control rules out a change in supersaturation. ····

RitonavirRTV, model drugPoorly soluble, log P 5.98, slow crystallizer; form II needle seeds; un-ionized at pH 6.8; measured.
PVPsynthetic, K 29/32Poly(vinylpyrrolidone); measured.
PVPVAsynthetic, K 28Poly(vinylpyrrolidone vinyl acetate); measured.
PAlAmnsyntheticPoly(allylamine); measured.
Pn-MVAmnsyntheticPoly(N-methylvinylamine); measured.
PEEsyntheticPoly(ethylenimine); measured.
Pnn-DMAAmdsynthetic amidePoly(N,N-dimethyl acrylamide), amide without an NH donor; measured.
PVAcsyntheticPoly(vinylacetate); measured.
PVAhsyntheticPoly(vinyl alcohol), 99.7% hydrolyzed; measured.
PVPdsyntheticPoly(4-vinylpyridine); measured.
PAcAmdsynthetic amidePoly(acrylamide), NH2 amide; measured.
Pn-IPAAmdsynthetic amidePoly(N-iso-propylacrylamide), amide with one NH donor; measured.
PAAsyntheticPoly(acrylic acid), many carboxyl groups; measured.
PVPhsyntheticPoly(4-vinylphenol); measured.
PVPdn-OsyntheticPoly(4-vinylpyridine N-oxide); measured.
EUD L100syntheticEudragit L100; measured.
HPCcommercial celluloseHydroxypropyl cellulose; measured.
CAPhcommercial celluloseCellulose acetate phthalate; measured.
HPMCcommercial cellulose, 606 gradeHydroxypropyl methyl cellulose; measured.
HPMCAScommercial cellulose, AS-MFHydroxypropyl methyl cellulose acetate succinate; measured.
CMCABcommercial celluloseCarboxymethyl cellulose acetate butyrate; measured.
CP Adpnew esterPropionate adipate; DS (CO2H) 0.48, SP 23.28; measured.
CA 320S Adpnew esterAcetate adipate; 0.67, SP 22.95; measured.
CAP Adp 0.85new esterAcetate propionate adipate; 0.85, SP 21.27; measured.
CA 398-30 Adpnew esterAcetate adipate; 0.21, SP 20.91; measured.
CAB Adp 0.81new esterAcetate butyrate adipate; 0.81, SP 20.86; measured.
CAP Adp 0.33new esterAcetate propionate adipate; 0.33, SP 20.56; measured.
CAP Seb 0.67new esterAcetate propionate sebacate; 0.67, SP 20.41; measured.
CAP 482-20 Adpnew esterAcetate propionate adipate; 0.19, SP 20.29; measured.
CAP Subnew esterAcetate propionate suberate; 0.26, SP 20.19; measured.
CAB 381-20 Adpnew esterAcetate butyrate adipate; 0.19, SP 20.11; measured.
CAB Adp 0.25new esterAcetate butyrate adipate; 0.25, SP 20.05; measured.
CAP Seb 0.24new esterAcetate propionate sebacate; 0.24, SP 19.94; measured.
CAB Subnew esterAcetate butyrate suberate; 0.25, SP 19.84; measured.
CAB Sebnew esterAcetate butyrate sebacate; 0.22, SP 19.62; measured.

What was done

Experiment

Seeds by PXRD, DSC, PLM and SEM→form II needles.···

Model

BFDH habit of form II→fastest growth along a.

Calculation

DS by NMR, Mn by SEC, Tg by DSC→Fedors SP of the 14 new esters.····

↓
Experiment

Crystalline ritonavir with 8 polymers at 5 µg/mL, 48 h→solubility unchanged.·

↓
Experiment

Seeds in pH 6.8 buffer with 5 µg/mL polymer, 37 °C→ritonavir to 10 µg/mL (S 7.6)→UV every 5 s→slope over 2 min→Rg0/Rgp for 34 polymers.··

↓
Analysis

New esters ranked by SP and by DS (CO2H).·

Analysis

OPLS-DA of 19 cellulose-based polymers on 7 descriptors→classes and loadings.···

Experiment

Crystals after growth, no polymer vs Pn-IPAAmd→SEM size and PXRD.··

More detail

What was done

  1. Seeds. Ritonavir as received, sieved below 250 µm; crystal form checked by PXRD (5–35° 2θ) and DSC (melting point at 5 °C/min, Tg of the cooled melt at 20 °C/min); habit by PLM and SEM, with length and width of 50 crystals measured in ImageJ. The habit expected for form II was predicted with the BFDH tool in Mercury. ····
  2. Polymers. Fifteen synthetic and five cellulose-based commercial polymers (Table 1) and 14 cellulose ω-carboxyalkanoate esters synthesized at Virginia Tech (Scheme 1, Table 2): cellulose acetate, propionate, acetate propionate or acetate butyrate carrying adipate, suberate or sebacate, randomly substituted. DS by 1H NMR, Mn by SEC (polystyrene equivalents), Tg by DSC (second heating), SP by the Fedors group-contribution method with a molar volume correction for glassy polymers. ····
  3. Solubility control. Excess crystalline ritonavir in pH 6.8 phosphate buffer at 37 °C for 48 h, with or without 8 polymers at 5 µg/mL; the ultracentrifuged supernatant was assayed by HPLC-UV at 240 nm. ·
  4. Growth rate. Seeds were equilibrated at 37 °C in 100 mM sodium phosphate buffer, pH 6.8, containing 5 µg/mL polymer and stirred at 400 rpm; a small volume of ritonavir in methanol raised the concentration to 10 µg/mL (S 7.6). A fibre-optic UV probe recorded spectra every 5 s, and second-derivative spectra limited scattering by the crystals. The slope over the first 2 min gave the initial growth rate; each run was done in triplicate. Seed amount, volume and methanol fraction are not given. ···
  5. Effectiveness ratio. Rg0/Rgp, growth rate without polymer over growth rate with polymer; a ratio above 1 was defined as effective. ·
  6. Multivariate analysis. OPLS-DA of the 19 cellulose-based polymers in two classes ("effective", "ineffective") with seven X variables (SP, DP, Mn, monomer Mw, HBA, HBD, Tg), centred and scaled to unit variance, components validated by cross-validation. ·
  7. Habit after growth. Crystals recovered after growth without polymer and with Pn-IPAAmd were rinsed with water and examined by SEM and PXRD.

Key equations

Solubility parameter (Eq. 1)
δ=∑iΔei∑iΔvi=ΔEvV

The square root of the cohesive energy density, estimated from tabulated group contributions to the energy of vaporization (Δe) and to the molar volume (Δv). It was calculated for the 14 new esters; a higher δ means a more hydrophilic polymer, and it is the hydrophobicity scale of the paper.·

Molar volume correction (Eqs. 2, 3)
Δvi=4n(n<3),Δvi=2n(n≥3)

An extra volume added for glassy polymers (Tg above 25 °C), n being the number of main-chain atoms in the smallest repeating unit.·

Supersaturation (Eq. 4)
S=cc*

Concentration over crystalline solubility; 10 µg/mL over 1.3 µg/mL is quoted as S 7.6.·

Effectiveness ratio (Fig. 6)
Rg0Rgp

Initial growth rate without polymer divided by that with polymer; a value of 3 means growth three times slower.

Terms used on this page
  • Seeded desupersaturation: seed crystals are placed in a supersaturated solution, and the fall of the dissolved concentration measures how fast they grow.
  • Solubility parameter (SP, δ): a number for how strongly a material's molecules hold together; materials with similar SP have similar polarity. Water is 49.01 MPa^1/2, the new esters 19.62–23.28.
  • Degree of substitution (DS): the average number of the three hydroxyls per glucose unit that carry a given ester; DS (CO2H) counts the carboxyl-ended ones (adipate, suberate, sebacate).
  • Aspect ratio: crystal length over width.
  • BFDH: a geometric prediction of crystal shape from the crystal structure.
  • OPLS-DA: a regression that separates two groups of samples along one "predictive" axis; its loadings show which variables push a sample toward one group.
  • Trains, loops, tails: segments of an adsorbed chain lying on the surface, bulging into solution between contacts, and dangling at the chain ends.
Fig. 2: The new cellulose esters: four backbones and their side chains
Fig. 2 · p.3135 · The new cellulose esters: four backbones and their side chainsShows. CA, CP, CAP and CAB backbones; carboxyl-ended adipate, suberate and sebacate; acetate, propionate and butyrate.
Table 3: Carboxyl content and solubility parameter of the 14 new esters
Table 3 · p.3136 · Carboxyl content and solubility parameter of the 14 new estersShows. DS (CO2H) 0.19–0.85 and SP 19.62–23.28 MPa^1/2, with their ranks.

03Main findings

1

The polymers ranged from no effect to a threefold slowdown

At 5 µg/mL, Rg0/Rgp ran from 0.83 to 3.25. Pn-IPAAmd (3.25), CAP Adp 0.85 (2.98), CAB Adp 0.81 (2.70) and HPMCAS (about 2.5) slowed growth most; the other synthetic polymers gave about 0.9–1.4. ··

Fig. 6: Growth-rate ratio for all 34 polymers
Fig. 6 · p.3140 · Growth-rate ratio for all 34 polymersShows. white synthetic, blue commercial cellulose-based, red new esters; a ratio above 1 means slower growth.Read it as. the bar labelled "CAB Adp 0.85" is CAB Adp 0.81.Also supports K1
More detail

Without polymer, dissolved ritonavir fell from about 10.0 to 6.9 µg/mL within 2 min of seeding. With CAP Adp 0.85 it fell only to about 9.25 µg/mL, with CAP Adp 0.33 to about 8.0 and with CAB Adp 0.25 to about 6.15; the authors give rate reductions of 3.0- and 1.6-fold for the two CAP adipates and call CAB Adp 0.25 ineffective. ··

Across all 34 polymers (Fig. 6), the commercial cellulose derivatives gave about 2.54 (HPMCAS), 2.19 (HPMC), 2.12 (CAPh), 1.63 (CMCAB) and 1.32 (HPC). Among the synthetic polymers Pn-IPAAmd stood out at 3.25; the rest gave about 0.92 (PVAc) to 1.42 (PVPVA), with PVP and PAA about 1.20. The new esters spanned 0.83 (CAB Sub) to 2.98 (CAP Adp 0.85).

The authors define a ratio above 1 as effective, yet name only five commercial polymers as effective, Pn-IPAAmd > HPMCAS > HPMC > CAPh > CMCAB, and five of the 14 new esters; CAP Adp 0.85 and CAB Adp 0.81 outperformed every commercial cellulose derivative. They summarize that the synthetic polymers (except Pn-IPAAmd) and the very hydrophobic new esters were ineffective "in general", and the moderately hydrophobic cellulose-based polymers effective. ···

Fig. 5: Desupersaturation with and without three new esters
Fig. 5 · p.3139 · Desupersaturation with and without three new estersShows. ritonavir falls from 10 to about 6.9 µg/mL in 2 min without polymer, only to about 9.25 with CAP Adp 0.85; CAB Adp 0.25 does not help.
2

Among the new cellulose esters, only the less hydrophobic ones inhibited growth

The five esters with SP 20.56–23.28 MPa^1/2 gave ratios of 1.64–2.98, CA 398-30 Adp (SP 20.91) being the exception at 0.95; the eight more hydrophobic esters (SP 19.62–20.41) gave 0.83–1.01. ·

Fig. 7: New esters ordered by hydrophobicity
Fig. 7 · p.3140 · New esters ordered by hydrophobicityShows. left (SP 23.28–20.56) ratios 1.64–2.98 except yellow CA 398-30 Adp; right (more hydrophobic) 0.83–1.01.Also supports K3
More detail

Ordered from least to most hydrophobic (Fig. 7): CP Adp 1.68 (SP 23.28), CA 320S Adp 1.83 (22.95), CAP Adp 0.85 2.98 (21.27), CA 398-30 Adp 0.95 (20.91), CAB Adp 0.81 2.70 (20.86) and CAP Adp 0.33 1.64 (20.56); then CAP Seb 0.67 0.85 (20.41), CAP 482-20 Adp 1.01, CAP Sub 0.94, CAB 381-20 Adp 0.85, CAB Adp 0.25 0.99, CAP Seb 0.24 0.93, CAB Sub 0.83 and CAB Seb 0.84 (19.62). The authors call this "a notable trend": SP 20.56–23.28 inhibits, SP below 20.56 does not. Within the window the two best esters lie in the middle (SP 21.27 and 20.86), and the least hydrophobic, CP Adp, gave 1.68. ···

3

More carboxyl groups went with better inhibition, with one exception

Esters with DS (CO2H) 0.33–0.85 gave 1.64–2.98, except CAP Seb 0.67 (0.85); those with DS (CO2H) 0.19–0.26 gave 0.83–1.01. ·

Fig. 8: New esters ordered by carboxyl content
Fig. 8 · p.3140 · New esters ordered by carboxyl contentShows. high DS (CO2H) on the left inhibits, except yellow CAP Seb 0.67 (caption: "CAB Seb 0.67").Also supports K4
More detail

Ordered by DS (CO2H) (Fig. 8): CAP Adp 0.85 (DS 0.85) 2.98, CAB Adp 0.81 (0.81) 2.70, CA 320S Adp (0.67) 1.83, CAP Seb 0.67 (0.67) 0.85, CP Adp (0.48) 1.68 and CAP Adp 0.33 (0.33) 1.64, then eight esters with DS (CO2H) 0.19–0.26 at 0.83–1.01. In the two adipate pairs that share a backbone, the higher DS (CO2H) gave the higher ratio: CAP Adp 0.85 2.98 against CAP Adp 0.33 1.64, and CAB Adp 0.81 2.70 against CAB Adp 0.25 0.99. The exception, CAP Seb 0.67, is the most hydrophobic of the high-DS esters (SP 20.41). The Fig. 8 caption and the discussion call it "CAB Seb 0.67", a polymer not in Table 2, and the Fig. 8 order departs from decreasing DS (CO2H) at CA 398-30 Adp. ········

4

A multivariate model ranks hydrophobicity first

An OPLS-DA model of the 19 cellulose-based polymers separated effective from ineffective ones (R2Ycum 0.713, Q2Y 0.512), and SP had the largest loading on the separating component (about 0.70). ···

Fig. 9: OPLS-DA of the 19 cellulose-based polymers
Fig. 9 · p.3141 · OPLS-DA of the 19 cellulose-based polymersShows. (a) effective polymers (black) on the right, ineffective (red) on the left; (b) SP has the largest loading.Also supports K5
More detail

One predictive and three orthogonal components were fitted; they explain 91% of the X variation (R2Xcum 0.91), and the authors read a Q2Y above 0.5 as good prediction. In the score plot the ineffective polymers lie at negative t[1] and the effective ones at positive t[1], except CAB Adp 0.81 and CAP Adp 0.33, just left of zero; HPC lies outside the 95% ellipse and, in the authors' words, fits no class. Four effective commercial polymers (HPC, CMCAB, HPMC, HPMCAS) lie at positive to[1], whereas CAPh and the effective new esters lie at negative to[1], which the authors relate to different HBD, HBA, SP and Mn. The loadings were about 0.70 for SP, 0.46 for HBD, 0.39 for Tg, 0.29 for monomer Mw, 0.01 for Mn, −0.17 for DP and −0.19 for HBA; the bars of SP, HBD, Tg and monomer Mw stay above zero, those of Mn, DP and HBA cross it. The authors conclude that SP was the most important variable and that no significant correlation was found with Mn, monomer Mw, DP, HBA or Tg. ······

5

Pn-IPAAmd made the crystals shorter and wider

Growth without polymer raised the aspect ratio of the crystals from 7.7 to 8.8; growth with Pn-IPAAmd lowered it to 4.4, the width rising to 9.3 µm against 5.7 µm, and the (200) PXRD peak became stronger. ···

Fig. 4: Seeds, crystals after growth, and the predicted habit
Fig. 4 · p.3139 · Seeds, crystals after growth, and the predicted habitShows. (b) seeds; (c) longer needles after growth alone; (d) shorter, wider crystals with Pn-IPAAmd (note its shorter scale bar); (e) BFDH form II, a-axis vertical.Also supports K7
More detail

Mean length and width (50 crystals each, SEM) were 44.4 ± 15.2 and 5.8 ± 1.9 µm for the seeds, 50.4 ± 18.6 and 5.7 ± 1.4 µm after growth without polymer, and 41.1 ± 16.5 and 9.3 ± 2.5 µm after growth with Pn-IPAAmd. BFDH predicts that form II grows fastest along the a-axis through four faces, (−10−1), (−1−10), (−101) and (−110); the seeds are more needlelike than the predicted rod, and their weak (200) reflection near 17.7° 2θ, strong in the predicted pattern, is read as fast growth along a ("appears"). After growth with Pn-IPAAmd the peak near 17.8° became one of the two strongest of the pattern (about 245 counts, against about 150 in the seeds), which the authors take to suggest that Pn-IPAAmd slows growth along a. ·····

Fig. S1: PXRD before and after growth with Pn-IPAAmd
Fig. S1 · p.SI-1 · PXRD before and after growth with Pn-IPAAmdShows. predicted form II, seeds, and crystals grown with Pn-IPAAmd, in which the peaks near 17.8 and 18.4° become the strongest.

04Further observations

  • At 5 µg/mL no polymer changed ritonavir solubility much: 1.2–1.6 µg/mL against 1.3 µg/mL. ·
  • The seeds were form II needles melting at 121.0 °C. ···
  • The new esters span SP 19.62–23.28 MPa^1/2, Mn 3850–61000 g/mol and Tg 74–134 °C. ·
More detail
  • Solubility control. Crystalline ritonavir dissolved to 1.3 ± 0.1 µg/mL at pH 6.8 and 37 °C; with polymer at 5 µg/mL the values were 1.2 ± 0.05 (PVP), 1.3 ± 0.03 (PVPVA), 1.5 ± 0.02 (HPMC), 1.4 ± 0.09 (HPMCAS), 1.3 ± 0.02 (CAP Adp 0.85), 1.3 ± 0.01 (CAB Adp 0.81), 1.6 ± 0.01 (CMCAB) and 1.3 ± 0.01 µg/mL (Pn-IPAAmd). The authors call the effect negligible and assume ("it is reasonable to assume") that the dilute polymer solutions have the viscosity of water, so that the growth differences are free of supersaturation and mass-transport effects. ··
  • Seed form. PXRD showed the form II peaks at 9.51, 9.88 and 22.2° 2θ and no form I peak at 6.75°; the melting point (121.0 °C) and the Tg of the cooled melt (50.4 °C) agreed with literature values for form II and glassy ritonavir. ···
  • Predicted habit. BFDH gives a rod elongated along a (orthorhombic, P212121); the experimental seeds were more needlelike. ·
  • New ester properties. SP fell from 23.28 (CP Adp) to 19.62 MPa^1/2 (CAB Seb), against 49.01 for water; Mn ran from 3850 (CP Adp) to 61000 g/mol (CAB 381-20 Adp); Tg from 74 °C (CAP Seb 0.67; the text gives 82 °C, CAB Adp 0.81, as the lowest) to 134 °C (CA 320S Adp); total DS from 2.16 to 2.98. ···
Table 5: Solubility of ritonavir with 5 µg/mL polymer
Table 5 · p.3138 · Solubility of ritonavir with 5 µg/mL polymerShows. 1.2–1.6 µg/mL against 1.3 without polymer.Also supports K2

05How the authors connect the findings

1A polymer slows growth only if it adsorbs on the crystal and blocks the sites where molecules join the lattice. ·
↓
2How much it adsorbs depends on its balance of hydrophilic and hydrophobic parts, and enough of it must dissolve.
↓
3Flexible synthetic chains adsorb in loops with little contact and fail even at a suitable SP; Pn-IPAAmd is the exception, "speculated" to hydrogen-bond to the fast-growing faces. ···
↓
Too hydrophilicPolymer prefers water↓stays in solution↓growth sites stay open↓no inhibition.·
Too hydrophobicChain prefers itself↓collapses into a compact globule↓adsorbs little or covers little surface↓no inhibition.·
Moderately hydrophobicPolymer adsorbs↓semirigid cellulose chain lies flat, ionized carboxyls keep it amphiphilic↓growth sites covered↓growth slowed.··
What sets the switch point. Hydrophobicity: among the new esters SP 20.56–23.28 MPa^1/2 worked and lower SP failed; carboxyl content and backbone stiffness shift the outcome within that range. ··
Conclusion drawn. Moderate hydrophobicity, a semirigid structure and amphiphilicity "appear to be jointly responsible" and are "likely to promote adsorption" on ritonavir crystals. ··
More detail
  1. From the literature: adsorbed polymer occupies growth sites and acts as a mechanical barrier. The authors add that hydrophobicity "is likely" to set the extent of adsorption, and that adsorption blocks the incorporation of growth units, so that growth slows and smaller crystals form. ·
  2. A very hydrophilic polymer interacts more favourably with water; a very hydrophobic one interacts with its own monomer units and forms a condensed globule that "may not adsorb" or covers little surface. A polymer therefore needs an optimal hydrophobicity, and must still dissolve.

Too hydrophilic. Polymer remains solvated → little adsorption → no effect. Pnn-DMAAmd and PAcAmd were "probably" too hydrophilic or lacked hydrogen bond donors. ·

Too hydrophobic. Condensed globule → little adsorption → no effect. The eight esters below SP 20.56 failed, and CAP Seb 0.67 failed despite its many carboxyl groups because it is "too hydrophobic". ··

Moderately hydrophobic, semirigid, amphiphilic. Cellulose backbones are semirigid and adsorb flat, forming trains with more surface contact than flexible chains, which form loops; simulations show that stiffer chains adsorb more easily. The adipate carboxyls (pKa about 4.43) are nearly fully ionized at pH 6.8, which makes the polymers amphiphilic and "may influence" the conformation of the adsorbed chain. CA 398-30 Adp failed despite a suitable SP because its DS (CO2H) is low (0.21). ·····

  1. The synthetic polymers "most likely" failed because of their flexible chains, even when their SP matched that of an effective cellulose derivative (Pnn-DMAAmd, EUD L100, PAlAmn). PAA, with many ionized carboxyl groups, also failed, which the authors take as support for the "conjecture" that a balance of several features is needed. ··
  2. Pn-IPAAmd, the best inhibitor, does not fit the hydrophobicity picture alone. The four fastest-growing BFDH faces expose carbonyl oxygens and thiazole nitrogens that "can potentially" interact with its amide group; the shorter, wider crystals grown with it are read as adsorption on those faces ("suggesting"). Its activity "can likely be attributed" to moderate hydrophobicity plus "fortuitous" hydrogen bonding. ···

What sets the switch point. Hydrophobicity, read as SP. For the new esters the authors give SP 20.56–23.28 MPa^1/2 as effective and below 20.56 as ineffective; for all polymers they speak of moderately hydrophobic polymers with SP 20.56–25.98 MPa^1/2. Within that range a low DS (CO2H) (CA 398-30 Adp) or a flexible backbone (synthetic polymers) still gave no inhibition. ···

Conclusion drawn. Hydrophobicity, polymer rigidity and amphiphilicity "appear to be jointly responsible" and "are interrelated"; they are "likely to promote adsorption onto ritonavir crystal surfaces". ··

Fig. 3: The three amide polymers
Fig. 3 · p.3138 · The three amide polymersShows. (a) Pnn-DMAAmd, no NH; (b) Pn-IPAAmd, one NH; (c) PAcAmd, NH2.

06What it means for formulation

Stated by the authors
  • Polymers differ so much that growth inhibition should be considered when choosing a polymer for a supersaturating dosage form ("clearly important").
  • The structural factors found can guide the design of new inhibitor polymers.
AI reading, not stated in the paper
  • For ritonavir, HPMCAS, HPMC, CAPh and the new CAP Adp 0.85 and CAB Adp 0.81 slowed growth two- to threefold at only 5 µg/mL, whereas PVP and PVPVA barely did.
  • A seeded desupersaturation test at a few µg/mL of polymer is a quick way to rank inhibitors before formulation work.
More detail
Stated by the authors
  • It is "clearly important" to consider crystal growth inhibition when choosing a polymer for a supersaturating dosage form.
  • An effective growth inhibitor in solution is desirable to prolong supersaturation from amorphous dispersions.
  • The structural factors identified enhance "our ability to design new polymers for this purpose".
  • The new adipate esters were designed for amorphous dispersions: hydrophobic chains for affinity to hydrophobic drugs, ionizable carboxyls for release at intestinal pH.
AI reading, not stated in the paper
  • At 5 µg/mL, HPMCAS, HPMC, CAPh and the new CAP Adp 0.85 and CAB Adp 0.81 slowed ritonavir growth two- to threefold, whereas PVP and PVPVA, common dispersion carriers, barely did. Where growth on existing crystals limits a ritonavir formulation, a cellulose ester in solution is the better choice of these.
  • For cellulose esters, adding hydrophobic ester groups helps only up to a point: below an SP of about 20.5 MPa^1/2 activity was lost, while ionized carboxyl groups helped. Both changes may also alter release from a solid dispersion, which was not tested.
  • Growth inhibition is one step only: nucleation, polymer concentrations typical of dissolution, other drugs and release from a solid dispersion were not studied.
  • The OPLS-DA cannot be reused as a predictive tool from this paper: the descriptor values of the commercial polymers are not given and the classes rest on a loosely applied cut-off. ··

07Open questions

Raised by the authors
  • Are the BFDH fast-growing faces also the fast faces of the real crystals? The face-binding argument for Pn-IPAAmd holds only "assuming" they are.
  • The specific interactions of Pn-IPAAmd with the crystal are "speculated", not shown.
Not covered by this paper (AI reading)
  • Polymer adsorption on ritonavir crystals, the core of every explanation, was never measured. ·
  • Hydrophobicity and carboxyl content rise and fall together in the new esters, so their effects cannot be separated.
More detail
Raised by the authors
  • Are the four BFDH fast-growing faces also the fast faces of the experimental crystals? The hydrogen-bonding explanation for Pn-IPAAmd holds only "assuming" they are.
  • The specific intermolecular interactions of Pn-IPAAmd with the crystal are "speculated".
  • A correct balance of several chemical and structural features is needed, which the authors call a "conjecture"; the features are "interrelated". ·
Not covered by this paper (AI reading)
  • Adsorbed amount, adsorbed conformation, chain rigidity and hydrogen bonding at the crystal surface, which carry the explanations, were not measured. ··
  • SP and DS (CO2H) are confounded in the new esters; only two single polymers separate them.
  • The SP values of the commercial and synthetic polymers, used for the 20.56–25.98 range and the rigidity argument, are not printed.
  • The cut-off for "effective" is applied loosely: PVPVA (about 1.42) and HPC (about 1.32) are above 1.
  • One drug, one supersaturation, one polymer concentration and one temperature; nucleation and the duration of supersaturation were not studied.
  • Poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) is above its lower critical solution temperature (about 32 °C in the general literature, not in the paper) at 37 °C, so its state in solution, and whether its effect holds at other temperatures, are open.
  • Seed amount and methanol fraction are not given, so the absolute rates cannot be compared with other studies.

08How solid

AI assessment, not a statement made in the paper
Moderate

The growth-rate ratios are measured in triplicate under one controlled condition, the solubility control holds, and the SP window among the new esters is clear. The explanations (adsorption, rigidity, ionized carboxyls, hydrogen bonding of Pn-IPAAmd) were not measured, hydrophobicity and carboxyl content are confounded, and the "effective" cut-off and several labels are inconsistent. ······

More detail
What holds
  • One seeded protocol, in triplicate with standard deviations, for all 34 polymers. ·
  • The polymer effects are not solubility effects: solubility stayed at 1.2–1.6 µg/mL.
  • The SP window among the 14 new esters holds with one exception.
  • The two backbone-matched adipate pairs both favour the higher DS (CO2H).
  • The multivariate model independently gives SP the largest loading.
What weakens it
  • None of the proposed mechanisms is measured; adsorption is inferred. ·
  • SP and DS (CO2H) co-vary, and the two outliers are explained after the fact.
  • The "effective" cut-off is above 1 by definition, but polymers at 1.0–1.4 are called ineffective, and the OPLS-DA class ranges do not match the data. ·
  • The OPLS-DA has 19 polymers, seven variables and four components (Q2Y 0.512); Tg and HBD also load, against the "no correlation" statement; the descriptor values of the commercial polymers are not printed. ··
  • The Pn-IPAAmd argument rests on means of 50 crystals with wide spreads, on PXRD relative intensities and on an unknown seed mass, and its solution state at 37 °C is not characterized. ··
  • Labels and tables contain errors: "CAB Adp 0.85" and "CAB Seb 0.67" do not exist, the stated Tg range and one DS total disagree with the tables, S is rounded, and a form I peak lies outside the scan range. ·····

09Figure guide

Every figure and table of the paper, what it is there for, and what to check on the original. Key figures are shown with the story.

FigureWhat it does in the paperSupportsCheck (AI note)
Abstract graphic (p.3133)Repeats 17 bars of Fig. 6 as the headline picture.F1Labels CAB Adp 0.81 as "CAB Adp 0.85".
Fig. 1 (p.3134)Structure of ritonavir, the model drug.0.2A schematic, not data.
Fig. 2 (p.3135)key figureStructures of the four backbones and the side chains of the new esters.0.2A schematic, not data.
Table 1 (p.3135)Names and abbreviations of the 20 commercial polymers.0.2
Table 2 (p.3135)Names and abbreviations of the 14 new esters.0.2
Table 3 (p.3136)key figureDS and SP of the new esters, the two orderings of Figs. 7 and 8.F2, F3DS (CO2H) ranks inconsistent; one DS total does not add up.·
Table 4 (p.3136)Mn and Tg of the new esters, inputs to the OPLS-DA.F4The lowest Tg in the text (82 °C) misses CAP Seb 0.67 at 74 °C.
Scheme 1 (p.3137)Synthetic route to the carboxyl-ended cellulose esters.0.2A schematic, not data.
Table 5 (p.3138)key figureSolubility control: polymers at 5 µg/mL leave the solubility at 1.2–1.6 µg/mL.0.4, K2
Fig. 3 (p.3138)key figureStructures of the three amide polymers, used to explain why only Pn-IPAAmd works.0.5A schematic, not data.
Fig. 4 (p.3139)key figureSeed habit, crystal shape after growth with and without Pn-IPAAmd, and the BFDH habit.··F5, K7Panels c and d at different magnifications; wide size spreads.
Fig. 5 (p.3139)key figureExample desupersaturation curves behind the ratio.F1
Fig. 6 (p.3140)key figureThe main data set: Rg0/Rgp for all 34 polymers.F1, K1Several polymers above 1 are called ineffective; one label misprinted.·
Fig. 7 (p.3140)key figureNew esters ordered by SP: the hydrophobicity window.F2, K3SP and DS (CO2H) co-vary.
Fig. 8 (p.3140)key figureNew esters ordered by DS (CO2H): the carboxyl trend.F3, K4Outlier misnamed; order not strictly by DS.·
Fig. 9 (p.3141)key figureOPLS-DA score plot and loadings: SP leads.·F4, K5Tg and HBD also load; class ranges misstated.·
More detail
FigureWhat it does in the paperSupportsCheck (AI note)
Fig. S1 (SI p.1)key figurePXRD of the predicted, seed and post-growth patterns: form II identity and the (200) change.·F5, K7Relative intensities differ at other angles too.