Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLeung, Sharon SY
dc.contributor.authorParumasivam, Thaigarajan
dc.contributor.authorGao, Fiona G
dc.contributor.authorCarrigy, Nicholas B
dc.contributor.authorVehring, Reinhard
dc.contributor.authorFinlay, Warren H
dc.contributor.authorMorales, Sandra
dc.contributor.authorBritton, Warwick J
dc.contributor.authorKutter, Elizabeth
dc.contributor.authorChan, Hak-Kim
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-17
dc.date.available2019-05-17
dc.date.issued2016-02-29
dc.identifier.citationLeung, S.S.Y., Parumasivam, T., Gao, F.G. et al. Pharm Res (2016) 33: 1486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-016-1892-6en_AU
dc.identifier.issn1573-904X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2123/20422
dc.description.abstractPurpose The potential of aerosol phage therapy for treating lung infections has been demonstrated in animal models and clinical studies. This work compared the performance of two dry powder formation techniques, spray freeze drying (SFD) and spray drying (SD), in producing inhalable phage powders. Method A Pseudomonas podoviridae phage, PEV2, was incorporated into multi-component formulation systems consisting of trehalose, mannitol and L-leucine (F1 = 60:20:20 and F2 = 40:40:20). The phage titer loss after the SFD and SD processes and in vitro aerosol performance of the produced powders were assessed. Results A significant titer loss (~ 2 log) was noted for droplet generation using an ultrasonic nozzle employed in the SFD method, but the conventional two-fluid nozzle used in the SD method was less destructive for the phage (~0.75 log loss). The phage were more vulnerable during the evaporative drying process (~0.75 log further loss) compared with the freeze drying step, which caused negligible phage loss. In vitro aerosol performance showed that the SFD powders (~80% phage recovery) provided better phage protection than the SD powders (~20% phage recovery) during the aerosolization process. Despite this, higher total lung doses were obtained for the SD formulations (SD-F1 = 13.1 ± 1.7 ×104 pfu and SD-F2 = 11.0 ± 1.4 ×104 pfu) than from their counterpart SFD formulations (SFD-F1 = 8.3 ± 1.8 ×104 pfu and SFD-F2 = 2.1 ± 0.3 ×104 pfu). Conclusion Overall, the SD method caused less phage reduction during the powder formation process and the resulted powders achieved better aerosol performance for PEV2.en_AU
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was financially supported by the Australian Research Council (Discovery Project DP150103953). Authors are grateful to Tony Smithyman of Special Phage Services for his valuable discussion and advice. Sharon Leung is a research fellow supported by the University of Sydney. Thaigarajan Parumasivam is a recipient of the Malaysian Government Scholarship.en_AU
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.publisherSpringer USen_AU
dc.relationARC DP150103953en_AU
dc.subjectPulmonary infectionsen_AU
dc.subjectphage therapyen_AU
dc.subjectaerosolsen_AU
dc.subjectantibiotic-resistant bacteriaen_AU
dc.titleProduction of inhalation phage powders using spray freeze drying and spray drying techniques for treatment of respiratory infectionsen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.subject.asrcFoR::110203 - Respiratory Diseasesen_AU
dc.subject.asrcFoR::111504 - Pharmaceutical Sciencesen_AU
dc.subject.asrcFoR::110309 - Infectious Diseasesen_AU
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-016-1892-6
dc.type.pubtypePre-printen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.