Hubbry Logo
Modified-release dosageModified-release dosageMain
Open search
Modified-release dosage
Community hub
Modified-release dosage
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Modified-release dosage
Modified-release dosage
Modified-release dosage
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Modified-release dosage is a mechanism that (in contrast to immediate-release dosage) delivers a drug with a delay after its administration (delayed-release dosage) or for a prolonged period of time (extended-release [ER, XR, XL] dosage) or to a specific target in the body (targeted-release dosage).[1]

Sustained-release dosage forms are dosage forms designed to release (liberate) a drug at a predetermined rate in order to maintain a constant drug concentration for a specific period of time with minimum side effects. This can be achieved through a variety of formulations, including liposomes and drug-polymer conjugates (an example being hydrogels). Sustained release's definition is more akin to a "controlled release" rather than "sustained".

Extended-release dosage consists of either sustained-release (SR) or controlled-release (CR) dosage. SR maintains drug release over a sustained period but not at a constant rate. CR maintains drug release over a sustained period at a nearly constant rate.[1]

Sometimes these and other terms are treated as synonyms, but the United States Food and Drug Administration has in fact defined most of these as different concepts.[1] Sometimes the term "depot tablet" is used, by analogy to the term for an injection formulation of a drug which releases slowly over time, but this term is not medically or pharmaceutically standard for oral medication.

Modified-release dosage and its variants are mechanisms used in tablets (pills) and capsules to dissolve a drug over time in order to be released more slowly and steadily into the bloodstream, while having the advantage of being taken at less frequent intervals than immediate-release (IR) formulations of the same drug. For example, orally administered extended-release morphine can enable certain chronic pain patients to take only 1–2 tablets per day, rather than needing to redose every 4–6 hours as is typical with standard-release morphine tablets.

Most commonly it refers to time-dependent release in oral dose formulations. Timed release has several distinct variants such as sustained release where prolonged release is intended, pulse release, delayed release (e.g. to target different regions of the GI tract) etc. A distinction of controlled release is that it not only prolongs action, but it attempts to maintain drug levels within the therapeutic window to avoid potentially hazardous peaks in drug concentration following ingestion or injection and to maximize therapeutic efficiency.

In addition to pills, the mechanism can also apply to capsules and injectable drug carriers (that often have an additional release function), forms of controlled release medicines include gels, implants and devices (e.g. the vaginal ring and contraceptive implant) and transdermal patches.

Examples for cosmetic, personal care, and food science applications often centre on odour or flavour release.

The release technology scientific and industrial community is represented by the Controlled Release Society (CRS). The CRS is the worldwide society for delivery science and technologies. CRS serves more than 1,600 members from more than 50 countries. Two-thirds of CRS membership is represented by industry and one-third represents academia and government. CRS is affiliated with the Journal of Controlled Release and Drug Delivery and Translational Research scientific journals.

List of abbreviations

[edit]

There is no industry standard for these abbreviations, and confusion and misreading have sometimes caused prescribing errors.[2] Clear handwriting is necessary. For some drugs with multiple formulations, putting the meaning in parentheses is advisable.

Abbreviation Meaning Notes
CD Controlled Delivery
CR Controlled Release
CC Continuous Control, Constant Control
DR Delayed Release
ER Extended Release
IR Immediate Release
ID Initial Depot
LA Long-Acting
LAR Long-Acting Release
MR Modified Release
PR Prolonged Release
SA Sustained Action Ambiguous, can sometimes mean Short-Acting
SR Sustained Release
TR Timed Release
XL Extra Long
XR Extended/Extra Release
XT Extended/Extra Time
LS Lesser/Lower Strength
DS Double Strength
DA Double Action
ES Extra Strength
XS Extra Strength

A few other abbreviations are similar to these (in that they may serve as suffixes) but refer to dose rather than release rate. They include ES and XS (Extra Strength).

Methods

[edit]

Today, most time-release drugs are formulated so that the active ingredient is embedded in a matrix of insoluble substance(s) (various: some acrylics, even chitin; these substances are often patented) such that the dissolving drug must find its way out through the holes.

In some SR formulations, the drug dissolves into the matrix, and the matrix physically swells to form a gel, allowing the drug to exit through the gel's outer surface.

Micro-encapsulation is also regarded as a more complete technology to produce complex dissolution profiles. Through coating an active pharmaceutical ingredient around an inert core and layering it with insoluble substances to form a microsphere, one can obtain more consistent and replicable dissolution rates in a convenient format that can be mixed and matched with other instant release pharmaceutical ingredients into any two piece gelatin capsule.

There are certain considerations for the formation of sustained-release formulation:

  • If the pharmacological activity of the active compound is not related to its blood levels, time releasing has no purpose except in some cases, such as bupropion, to reduce possible side effects.
  • If the absorption of the active compound involves an active transport, the development of a time-release product may be problematic.

The biological half-life of the drug refers to the drug's elimination from the bloodstream which can be caused by metabolism, urine, and other forms of excretion. If the active compound has a long half-life (over 6 hours), it is sustained on its own. If the active compound has a short half-life, it would require a large amount to maintain a prolonged effective dose. In this case, a broad therapeutic window is necessary to avoid toxicity; otherwise, the risk is unwarranted and another mode of administration would be recommended.[3] Appropriate half-lives used to apply sustained methods are typically 3–4 hours and a drug dose greater than 0.5 grams is too high.[4][5]

The therapeutic index also factors whether a drug can be used as a time release drug. A drug with a thin therapeutic range, or small therapeutic index, will be determined unfit for a sustained release mechanism in partial fear of dose dumping which can prove fatal at the conditions mentioned.[6] For a drug that is made to be released over time, the objective is to stay within the therapeutic range as long as needed.[3]

There are many different methods used to obtain a sustained release.

Diffusion systems

[edit]

Diffusion systems' rate release is dependent on the rate at which the drug dissolves through a barrier which is usually a type of polymer. Diffusion systems can be broken into two subcategories, reservoir devices and matrix devices.[3]

  • Reservoir devices coat the drug with polymers and in order for the reservoir devices to have sustained-release effects, the polymer must not dissolve and let the drug be released through diffusion.[3] The rate of reservoir devices can be altered by changing the polymer and is possible be made to have zero-order release; however, drugs with higher molecular weight have difficulty diffusing through the membrane.[7][8]
  • Matrix devices forms a matrix (drug(s) mixed with a gelling agent)[9] where the drug is dissolved/dispersed.[8] The drug is usually dispersed within a polymer and then released by undergoing diffusion. However, to make the drug SR in this device, the rate of dissolution of the drug within the matrix needs to be higher than the rate at which it is released. The matrix device cannot achieve a zero-order release but higher molecular weight molecules can be used.[7] The diffusion matrix device also tends to be easier to produce and protect from changing in the gastrointestinal tract, but factors such as food can affect the release rate.[6]

Dissolution systems

[edit]

Dissolution systems must have the system dissolved slowly in order for the drug to have sustained release properties which can be achieved by using appropriate salts and/or derivatives as well as coating the drug with a dissolving material.[3] It is used for drug compounds with high solubility in water.[6] When the drug is covered with some slow dissolving coat, it will eventually release the drug. Instead of diffusion, the drug release depends on the solubility and thickness of the coating. Because of this mechanism, the dissolution will be the rate limiting factor for drug release.[3] Dissolution systems can be broken down to subcategories called reservoir devices and matrix devices.[6]

  • The reservoir device coats the drug with an appropriate material which will dissolve slowly. It can also be used to administer beads as a group with varying thickness, making the drug release in multiple times creating a SR.[6]
  • The matrix device has the drug in a matrix and the matrix is dissolved instead of a coating. It can come either as drug-impregnated spheres or drug-impregnated tablets.[6]

Osmotic systems

[edit]
Main article: Osmotic controlled-release oral delivery system
A 54mg tablet of Concerta, which uses OROS technology.

Osmotic controlled-release oral delivery systems (OROS) have the form of a rigid tablet with a semi-permeable outer membrane and one or more small laser drilled holes in it. As the tablet passes through the body, water is absorbed through the semipermeable membrane via osmosis, and the resulting osmotic pressure is used to push the active drug through the opening(s) in the tablet. OROS is a trademarked name owned by ALZA Corporation, which pioneered the use of osmotic pumps for oral drug delivery.[10][11][12]

Osmotic release systems have a number of major advantages over other controlled-release mechanisms. They are significantly less affected by factors such as pH, food intake, GI motility, and differing intestinal environments. Using an osmotic pump to deliver drugs has additional inherent advantages regarding control over drug delivery rates. This allows for much more precise drug delivery over an extended period of time, which results in much more predictable pharmacokinetics. However, osmotic release systems are relatively complicated, somewhat difficult to manufacture, and may cause irritation or even blockage of the GI tract due to prolonged release of irritating drugs from the non-deformable tablet.[10][13][14][15][16][17][18]

Ion-exchange resin

[edit]
Main article: Ion-exchange resin

In the ion-exchange method, the resins are cross-linked water-insoluble polymers that contain ionisable functional groups that form a repeating pattern of polymers, creating a polymer chain.[3][6] The drug is attached to the resin and is released when an appropriate interaction of ions and ion exchange groups occur. The area and length of the drug release and number of cross-link polymers dictate the rate at which the drug is released, determining the SR effect.[6]

Floating systems

[edit]

A floating system is a system where it floats on gastric fluids due to low density. The density of the gastric fluids is about 1 g/mL; thus, the drug/tablet administered must have a smaller density. The buoyancy will allow the system to float to the top of the stomach and release at a slower rate without worry of excreting it. This system requires that there are enough gastric fluids present as well as food.[3] Many types of forms of drugs use this method such as powders, capsules, and tablets.[19]

Bio-adhesive systems

[edit]

Bio-adhesive systems generally are meant to stick to mucus and can be favorable for mouth based interactions due to high mucus levels in the general area but not as simple for other areas. Magnetic materials can be added to the drug so another magnet can hold it from outside the body to assist in holding the system in place. However, there is low patient compliance with this system.[3]

Matrix systems

[edit]

The matrix system is the mixture of materials with the drug, which will cause the drug to slow down. However, this system has several subcategories: hydrophobic matrices, lipid matrices, hydrophilic matrices, biodegradable matrices, and mineral matrices.[3]

  • A hydrophobic matrix is a drug mixed with a hydrophobic polymer. This causes SR because the drug, after being dissolved, will have to be released by going through channels made by the hydrophilic polymer.[3]
  • A hydrophilic matrix will go back to the matrix as discussed before where a matrix is a mixture of a drug or drugs with a gelling agent.[3] This system is well liked because of its cost and broad regulatory acceptance. The polymers used can be broken down into categories: cellulose derivatives, non-cellulose natural, and polymers of acrylic acid.[20]
  • A lipid matrix uses wax or similar materials. Drug release happens via diffusion through, and erosion of, the wax and tends to be sensitive to digestive fluids.[3]
  • Biodegradable matrices are made with unstable, linked monomers that will erode by biological compounds such as enzymes and proteins.[3]
  • A mineral matrix which generally means the polymers used are obtained in seaweed.[3]

Stimuli inducing release

[edit]

Examples of stimuli that may be used to bring about release include pH, enzymes, light, magnetic fields, temperature, ultrasonics, osmosis, cellular traction forces,[21] and electronic control of MEMS[22] and NEMS.[23]

Spherical hydrogels, in micro-size (50-600 μm diameter) with 3-dimensional cross-linked polymer, can be used as drug carrier to control the release of the drug. These hydrogels are called microgels. They may possess a negative charge as example DC-beads. By ion-exchange mechanism, a large amount of oppositely charged amphiphilic drugs can be loaded inside these microgels. Then, the release of these drugs can be controlled by a specific triggering factor like pH, ionic strength or temperature.[24]

Pill splitting

[edit]
Empty half-shell of a split bupropion XL 150mg manufactured by Anchen Pharmaceuticals that was soaked in water overnight and then shaken.

Some time release formulations do not work properly if split, such as controlled-release tablet coatings, while other formulations such as micro-encapsulation still work if the microcapsules inside are swallowed whole.[25][26]

Among the health information technology (HIT) that pharmacists use are medication safety tools to help manage this problem. For example, the ISMP "do not crush" list[27] can be entered into the system so that warning stickers can be printed at the point of dispensing, to be stuck on the pill bottle.

Pharmaceutical companies that do not supply a range of half-dose and quarter-dose versions of time-release tablets can make it difficult for patients to be slowly tapered off their drugs.

History

[edit]

The earliest SR drugs are associated with a patent in 1938 by Israel Lipowski, who coated pellets which led to coating particles.[7] The science of controlled release developed further with more oral sustained-release products in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the development of controlled release of marine anti-foulants in the 1950s, and controlled release fertilizer in the 1970s where sustained and controlled delivery of nutrients was achieved following a single application to the soil. Delivery is usually effected by dissolution, degradation, or disintegration of an excipient in which the active compound is formulated. Enteric coating and other encapsulation technologies can further modify release profiles.

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Modified-release dosage

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Modified-release dosage forms are pharmaceutical formulations engineered to alter the rate, timing, or site of release compared to immediate-release dosage forms, enabling controlled to achieve specific therapeutic or convenience objectives. These forms encompass a variety of solid oral products, such as tablets and capsules, that release either over an extended period or at a delayed location in the , thereby maintaining steady plasma concentrations and reducing dosing frequency. The primary categories of modified-release dosage forms include extended-release (also known as prolonged-release or sustained-release) and delayed-release systems. Extended-release formulations are designed to liberate the gradually over time, often using matrix systems, osmotic pumps, or technologies with polymers to prolong absorption and minimize peak-trough fluctuations in drug levels. In contrast, delayed-release products, typically coated with pH-sensitive enteric polymers, protect the drug from gastric degradation and target release in the intestines or later segments of the digestive system. Other variants, such as pulsatile or targeted-release forms, allow for multiphasic delivery mimicking natural physiological patterns. These dosage forms offer significant advantages in pharmacology and patient care, including improved , reduced side effects from high initial drug bursts, and enhanced adherence due to less frequent administration—often once or twice daily instead of multiple times. For instance, they are particularly valuable for chronic conditions requiring stable drug levels, such as or , where immediate-release forms might lead to suboptimal or . Regulatory emphasizes establishing in vitro-in vivo correlations (IVIVC) through , pharmacokinetic studies in healthy volunteers, and assessments to ensure consistent performance across batches and conditions like food intake.

Fundamentals

Definition and principles

Modified-release dosage forms are pharmaceutical preparations designed to alter the release rate, location, or timing of the active pharmaceutical ingredient () to achieve therapeutic or convenience objectives that conventional immediate-release forms cannot provide. These forms encompass both delayed-release and extended-release products, where the drug-release characteristics, such as time course or gastrointestinal site, are intentionally modified. For instance, they enable sustained drug availability over an extended period, often referred to as sustained-release (SR), extended-release (ER), or controlled-release systems, distinguishing them from immediate-release alternatives that deliver the rapidly upon administration. The core principles of modified-release dosage forms revolve around controlled release kinetics, which describe the rate and pattern of API liberation from the . Zero-order kinetics represents an ideal constant release rate independent of the remaining amount, modeled by the equation Q=k0tQ = k_0 t, where QQ is the amount of released at time tt, and k0k_0 is the zero-order release rate constant. In contrast, kinetics involves a release rate proportional to the residual concentration, leading to an exponential decline, while mixed-order kinetics combines elements of both for more complex profiles. These kinetic models guide design to predict and optimize , ensuring predictable absorption and . Modified-release differs from other controlled-release approaches, such as targeted delivery systems, by primarily focusing on temporal modulation (sustained or delayed) rather than spatial targeting to specific tissues or organs beyond the . The pharmacokinetic objectives include maintaining steady therapeutic plasma concentrations within the effective range, thereby minimizing peak-trough fluctuations that can lead to suboptimal or in immediate-release regimens. This approach supports prolonged therapeutic action while reducing the need for frequent dosing.

Comparison to immediate-release forms

Immediate-release (IR) dosage forms are characterized by rapid dissolution and absorption in the gastrointestinal tract, leading to a quick onset of action but a short duration of therapeutic effect due to the drug's pharmacokinetic profile. This often necessitates multiple daily doses to maintain efficacy, as plasma concentrations rise sharply to a peak and then decline rapidly, following first-order elimination kinetics. In contrast, modified-release (MR) dosage forms are designed to extend the effective half-life of the drug by controlling the rate and site of release, thereby reducing dosing frequency—for instance, from four times daily for IR formulations to once daily for equivalent MR versions—which improves patient adherence and convenience. MR systems minimize the high initial plasma concentration peaks associated with IR forms, potentially reducing dose-related side effects such as toxicity or adverse reactions from rapid absorption. Pharmacodynamically, IR formulations result in fluctuating plasma levels with pronounced peak-and-trough patterns, which can lead to suboptimal steady-state concentrations and variable therapeutic responses. MR forms, however, provide more consistent steady-state plasma concentrations over an extended period, offering smoother pharmacodynamic profiles that better align with the drug's therapeutic window. challenges in IR dosage forms, such as increased variability due to food effects that delay absorption or alter dissolution rates, are often more pronounced compared to MR designs, which can mitigate such influences through controlled release mechanisms. Key pharmacokinetic metrics highlight these differences: while the total area under the curve (AUC), representing overall drug exposure, is typically similar between IR and MR forms for bioequivalent products, the time to maximum concentration (T_max) is significantly delayed in MR formulations—often from minutes to hours—resulting in a flatter concentration-time profile. For example, in metoprolol formulations, IR achieves peak concentrations rapidly, whereas MR extends release over 3–12 hours, altering the T_max accordingly without substantially changing the AUC.

Release Mechanisms

Diffusion-controlled systems

Diffusion-controlled systems regulate release primarily through the of the active pharmaceutical ingredient across a rate-limiting barrier or within a matrix, following Fick's first law of . This law describes the flux JJ of molecules as J=−DdCdxJ = -D \frac{dC}{dx}, where DD is the diffusion coefficient of the in the medium, and dCdx\frac{dC}{dx} represents the concentration gradient across the barrier. The process relies on a concentration gradient driving passive from higher to lower concentrations, enabling zero-order or near-zero-order release kinetics under ideal conditions. These systems are broadly classified into membrane-controlled (reservoir) and monolithic (matrix) types. In membrane-controlled systems, the drug is contained in a central reservoir and diffuses through a surrounding polymeric membrane that acts as the primary rate-controlling layer, maintaining a constant concentration gradient for predictable release. Matrix systems, by contrast, involve the drug dispersed homogeneously within a polymer matrix, where release occurs via diffusion through the polymer network as the drug partitions into the surrounding medium. Within matrix designs, non-erodible matrices consist of inert polymers that remain structurally intact throughout the release period, allowing sustained diffusion without matrix degradation, whereas erodible matrices incorporate biodegradable polymers that gradually degrade, potentially combining diffusion with erosion to modulate release. Representative examples include patches, such as patches, which employ a matrix or reservoir design where diffuses through an adhesive layer and the for systemic absorption over 16–24 hours. Implantable devices, like -based subdermal implants for hormone delivery (e.g., acetate rods), also utilize through a non-erodible or erodible matrix to provide extended release over months. Several factors influence the release profile in these systems. Membrane thickness inversely affects the diffusion path length, with thicker barriers reducing flux and extending release duration. of the membrane or matrix modulates the effective diffusion coefficient by altering the and void space for movement, where higher porosity can accelerate release if not balanced with other parameters. solubility in the release medium directly impacts the concentration gradient, as more soluble drugs maintain steeper gradients and faster diffusion rates compared to poorly soluble ones.

Dissolution-controlled systems

Dissolution-controlled systems regulate release primarily through the dissolution rate of the substance or the matrix in the surrounding physiological fluids, where the process is governed by the solid's and the available surface area exposed to the dissolution medium. This mechanism ensures a sustained release by limiting the rate at which the or erodes and dissolves, distinguishing it from faster immediate-release forms. The foundational principle underlying this control is described by the Noyes-Whitney equation, which quantifies the dissolution rate as dCdt=DAhV(Cs−Cb)\frac{dC}{dt} = \frac{D A}{h V} (C_s - C_b), where DD is the of the in the dissolution medium, AA is the surface area of the dissolving solid, hh is the thickness of the stagnant adjacent to the solid surface, VV is the volume of the dissolution medium, CsC_s is the saturation of the at the solid-liquid interface, and CbC_b is the bulk concentration of the in the medium. This equation highlights how dissolution is driven by the concentration gradient across the , with factors like increased surface area or reduced thickness accelerating the release. In dissolution-controlled systems, two primary types of erosion dynamics are observed: surface-eroding and bulk-eroding. Surface-eroding systems, such as those incorporating matrices, undergo degradation primarily at the outer layer, where the or dissolves layer by layer, progressively exposing inner drug reservoirs and maintaining a relatively constant release rate until the core is reached. In contrast, bulk-eroding s degrade uniformly throughout the entire matrix volume due to water penetration and , leading to an initial burst release followed by a slower, diffusion-influenced phase as the structure weakens. These erosion types allow for tailored release profiles, with surface erosion providing more predictable zero-order kinetics in non-sink conditions. A common example of dissolution-controlled systems includes coated tablets utilizing swellable polymers like hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), where the polymer coating hydrates upon contact with gastrointestinal fluids, forming a gel layer that controls the rate of drug dissolution and from the core. In these formulations, HPMC's high grades enable sustained release over several hours by modulating the of the hydrated matrix, as seen in extended-release formulations of drugs like metformin. Such systems are particularly effective for poorly soluble drugs, where the polymer's dissolution properties ensure consistent . Several factors influence the performance of dissolution-controlled systems, including pH-dependent of the , which can alter CsC_s in varying gastrointestinal environments, potentially leading to site-specific release variations. of the also plays a critical role, as smaller particles increase AA, thereby enhancing the dissolution rate according to the Noyes-Whitney equation. Additionally, coating thickness directly impacts release kinetics by affecting the time required for penetration and subsequent , with thicker coatings generally prolonging the release duration. These parameters are optimized during to achieve desired therapeutic profiles while minimizing variability.

Osmotic pressure-controlled systems

Osmotic pressure-controlled systems represent a class of modified-release s that leverage osmotic gradients to achieve precise, controlled . These systems operate by exploiting the principle of , where water moves across a from a region of lower solute concentration (typically the gastrointestinal fluid) to higher concentration (within the dosage form), generating hydrostatic that drives release. The osmotic (π) is quantitatively described by the van't Hoff equation: π=iCRT\pi = iCRT where ii is the van't Hoff factor accounting for the number of particles the solute dissociates into, CC is the molar concentration of the osmolyte, RR is the universal gas constant, and TT is the absolute temperature in Kelvin. This influx of water expands the internal compartment, forcing the drug solution out through a small delivery orifice at a rate proportional to the osmotic gradient, often approximating zero-order kinetics for consistent release over extended periods. Two primary types of osmotic pressure-controlled systems are the elementary osmotic pump (EOP) and push-pull systems such as the Osmotic Release Oral System (OROS). The EOP, first developed by Felix Theuwes in 1974, features a simple compressed tablet core containing the and an osmogen (e.g., or ) coated with a (typically ) that includes a single laser-drilled orifice. Upon , gastrointestinal fluids permeate the , dissolving the core and creating internal pressure that extrudes the drug suspension through the orifice at a controlled rate independent of external or . In contrast, push-pull systems like OROS incorporate a bilayer core: an upper drug layer adjacent to the orifice and a lower expandable "push" layer of osmotically active polymer (e.g., polyethylene oxide). A semipermeable coating encases the bilayer, with water influx swelling the push layer to displace the drug layer forward, enabling delivery of poorly soluble drugs or higher doses. Representative therapeutic applications include Glucotrol XL, an OROS-based extended-release tablet of glipizide used for glycemic control in , which provides once-daily dosing by maintaining steady plasma levels through osmotic-driven release. Similarly, Concerta employs an OROS formulation of methylphenidate for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), delivering the in a biphasic manner—initial immediate release followed by prolonged osmotic pumping—to mimic natural fluctuations and improve symptom management over 12 hours. A key advantage of these systems is their pH-independent release profile, as the and osmotic mechanism function reliably across the varying pH environments of the (from acidic to neutral intestines), ensuring predictable regardless of food intake or transit time. However, a notable challenge is the risk of , where rupture or failure of the could lead to rapid, uncontrolled release of the entire load, potentially causing —particularly concerning for narrow drugs.

Reservoir and matrix systems

Reservoir systems consist of a core surrounded by a rate-controlling that modulates the release rate, allowing for zero-order kinetics under ideal conditions where the drug diffuses through the membrane at a constant rate. These systems are particularly useful for delivering potent drugs requiring precise dosing over extended periods, such as in implantable or formulations. However, a key limitation is the risk of , where membrane damage leads to rapid release of the entire drug load, potentially causing . In contrast, matrix systems involve the dispersed uniformly throughout a matrix, enabling release primarily through of the from the matrix or erosion of the itself, often following Higuchi kinetics for diffusion-dominated processes. Hydrophilic matrices, such as those based on hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, form a layer upon hydration that controls release, while hydrophobic matrices like ethylcellulose provide slower, more consistent erosion-independent . This uniform distribution reduces the risk of burst release compared to reservoir designs, making matrix systems suitable for oral tablets where manufacturing simplicity and cost-effectiveness are prioritized. Hybrid approaches, such as systems, bind the drug to resin beads through ionic interactions, with release occurring via competition with gastrointestinal ions, as seen in liquid suspensions of where the coated resin prolongs drug availability. These systems combine elements of and matrix designs by encapsulating drug-resin complexes within coatings or matrices to further tune release. Key design parameters for both systems include selection, such as ethylcellulose for its low permeability and tunable , which influences matrix porosity and . loading capacity is another critical factor, typically limited to 20-40% in matrices to maintain structural integrity without compromising release profiles, while in reservoirs, higher loadings are possible but require robust membrane integrity to prevent failure.

Gastroretentive and bioadhesive systems

Gastroretentive systems (GRDDS) are designed to prolong the residence time of in the , thereby enhancing drug absorption for medications with narrow windows in the upper . These systems counteract the natural gastric emptying process, which typically occurs within 2-4 hours in the fed state, by employing mechanisms such as , , or physical expansion. Floating systems, a prominent subtype, achieve low density (less than 1 g/cm³) through incorporation of gas-generating agents like or effervescent pairs, forming rafts or hydrodynamically balanced systems that remain buoyant on gastric fluids without impeding normal emptying. Mucoadhesive and expandable variants further contribute to retention by interacting with the or increasing device size to exceed the pyloric sphincter diameter (approximately 12.8 mm). Bioadhesive mechanisms in these systems rely on polymers that form intimate contact with mucosal surfaces, such as the gastric lining or other epithelia, to extend residence. Common polymers include carbomers (polyacrylic acids), which exhibit -dependent swelling and interact with glycoproteins via hydrogen bonding, van der Waals forces, and electrostatic interactions, particularly in the acidic gastric environment ( 1-3). These non-covalent bonds allow the polymer chains to interpenetrate the mucin network, creating a cohesive interface that resists shear forces from . For instance, carbopol 934P demonstrates strong mucoadhesion due to its high content, enabling proton donation for hydrogen bonding with mucin's hydroxyl and carboxyl groups. Representative examples illustrate the application of these systems. Floating matrix tablets of metformin hydrochloride, formulated with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and sodium alginate, have shown gastric retention times exceeding 8 hours in scintigraphic studies, improving for this antidiabetic agent absorbed primarily in the proximal . In non-gastric contexts, bioadhesive vaginal rings like those incorporating and ethinyl estradiol (e.g., NuvaRing) utilize copolymers with mucoadhesive properties to adhere to vaginal mucosa, providing sustained contraceptive release over 21 days through intimate epithelial contact. Expandable devices, such as those using swellable polymers like or , unfold in the to form larger structures, as demonstrated in gastroretentive films for ginger extract that expand to over 20 mm in diameter for prolonged delivery. Key factors influencing performance include the variability of gastric emptying time, which can range from 30 minutes to over 6 hours depending on fed versus fasted states, meal composition, and inter-individual differences, necessitating robust design to ensure consistent retention. Adhesion strength is quantified through tensile tests, where the force required to separate the bioadhesive from porcine gastric is measured, typically yielding values of 0.5-5 N/cm² for effective polymers like carbomers, guiding optimization. These considerations highlight the need for balancing retention with safety to avoid mucosal irritation.

Stimuli-responsive systems

Stimuli-responsive systems represent a sophisticated class of modified-release dosage forms designed to liberate therapeutic agents in response to specific environmental cues, facilitating precise spatiotemporal control over . These "smart" systems leverage materials that undergo physicochemical changes—such as conformational shifts, degradation, or phase transitions—upon encountering triggers like variations, temperature fluctuations, , or external magnetic fields. By aligning release with pathological conditions, such as acidic tumor microenvironments or elevated levels in inflamed tissues, these systems enhance therapeutic while minimizing off-target effects. pH-responsive systems operate by exploiting pH gradients across biological compartments, where polymers or coatings remain intact in one pH range but dissolve, swell, or ionize in another to trigger release. For instance, enteric coatings composed of copolymers (e.g., Eudragit L or S) protect drugs from gastric acidity (pH ~1-3) and dissolve at intestinal pH thresholds of 6-7, enabling colonic delivery. A representative example is pH-sensitive granules for , where the coating disintegrates in the neutral-to-alkaline colonic environment (pH >7), achieving targeted action with reduced systemic exposure. Similarly, temperature-responsive systems employ thermosensitive like poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAAm), which exhibit a (LCST) around 32°C; below this, the polymer swells in an hydrated coil state to entrap drugs, while above it, hydrophobic collapse and deswelling promote release. This mechanism is harnessed in injectable hydrogels for localized therapy, where mild (e.g., 37-42°C) induced by external sources accelerates payload liberation in tumor sites. Enzyme-responsive systems incorporate labile linkages, such as bonds cleavable by overexpressed proteases (e.g., matrix metalloproteinases in tumors), to dismantle the carrier and unleash the drug selectively at disease loci. In anticancer applications, enzyme-triggered implants or nanoparticles use protease-sensitive linkers to degrade in response to tumor-associated enzymes, enabling intracellular delivery of chemotherapeutics; for example, halloysite clay nanotubes coated with release upon exposure to hydrolases in cancer cells, demonstrating selective intracellular delivery with minimal premature leakage. Magnetic field-responsive systems integrate superparamagnetic nanoparticles (SPIONs) within matrices, where oscillating or static fields induce mechanical agitation, heat, or deformation to control release remotely. These allow non-invasive targeting, as seen in magnetic nanogels that accumulate at tumor sites under field guidance and release payloads upon field application, improving penetration in solid tumors. Despite their promise, designing stimuli-responsive systems faces challenges in achieving high trigger specificity to prevent unintended activation in healthy tissues and ensuring to avoid or from products. Balancing responsiveness with stability requires precise tuning of material properties, such as critical or LCST values, often informed by biodistribution studies. Ongoing research prioritizes hybrid systems combining multiple triggers for robust performance in complex physiological milieus.

Therapeutic Applications and Benefits

Clinical examples and drug types

Modified-release dosage forms are widely applied across various therapeutic categories to provide sustained therapeutic effects. In analgesics, extended-release , marketed as OxyContin, is formulated as a controlled-release oral tablet for the management of moderate to severe , allowing for around-the-clock analgesia with dosing every 12 hours. Similarly, abuse-deterrent formulations like Embeda, which combines extended-release morphine sulfate with sequestered hydrochloride, are designed for management while incorporating features to resist tampering and misuse. In cardiovascular applications, extended-release (e.g., Adalat CC or Procardia XL) is used to treat and chronic stable by providing gradual blockade, with plasma concentrations reaching a plateau approximately 6 hours post-administration and maintaining steady levels over 24 hours. For central nervous system disorders, extended-release (Effexor XR) capsules treat , , and , offering once-daily dosing with comparable to immediate-release forms but with reduced peak-related side effects. Depot injectable formulations exemplify modified-release in long-acting injectables; long-acting injection (Risperdal Consta) is administered intramuscularly every two weeks for maintenance treatment of in adults, releasing the gradually to improve adherence in patients with psychotic disorders. In , leuprolide depot formulations, such as Lupron Depot (leuprolide ) or Camcevi (leuprolide ), are subcutaneous or intramuscular injectables used for palliative treatment of advanced by suppressing testosterone production over 1 to 6 months, with a recent FDA approval of a 3-month prefilled version of leuprolide in August 2025. Endocrinology benefits from modified-release systems like Chronocort, an oral multiparticulate formulation for , which mimics circadian rhythms with twice-daily dosing and demonstrates relative of approximately 108% compared to immediate-release . Emerging innovations include personalized 3D-printed modified-release tablets, such as those fabricated via fused deposition modeling for drugs like losartan potassium or , enabling patient-specific dosing and controlled release profiles as demonstrated in studies up to 2025.

Advantages in patient compliance and efficacy

Modified-release dosage forms enhance patient compliance primarily by reducing the frequency of administration, which minimizes the risk of forgetfulness and alleviates the daily burden associated with multiple dosing schedules. This leads to higher adherence rates, as evidenced by a large-scale of over 123,000 patients across 15 chronic medications, where extended-release formulations improved the average medication possession ratio by 5.4% (80.2% vs. 74.8%) and adherence rates (defined as MPR > 0.85) by 10.3% (56.3% vs. 46.0%) compared to immediate-release forms. Similarly, in management, extended-release metformin was associated with higher persistence (75% vs. 73%) and adherence (62% vs. 59%) than the immediate-release version, demonstrating consistent benefits in simplifying regimens for long-term conditions. These improvements in adherence translate to better overall treatment outcomes by ensuring more consistent therapeutic exposure. In terms of , modified-release systems maintain stable plasma drug levels, avoiding the sharp peaks and troughs of immediate-release formulations, which can reduce and side effects while sustaining therapeutic benefits. For non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), lower maximum plasma concentrations (C_max) from extended-release designs minimize gastrointestinal upset, such as mucosal irritation and ulceration, by limiting exposure to high drug peaks that exacerbate local damage. This pharmacokinetic stability not only enhances tolerability but also supports prolonged analgesia or antihypertensive effects without compromising safety, as seen in reduced fluctuations that prevent subtherapeutic troughs and supratherapeutic peaks. The adoption of modified-release dosage forms also yields economic advantages by curbing healthcare costs through improved compliance and fewer complications in chronic . By enhancing adherence, these formulations decrease the need for additional interventions, such as emergency visits or hospitalizations; for instance, studies on reduced dosing in chronic conditions like and show lower total treatment expenditures due to better symptom control and prevention of exacerbations. A pharmacoeconomic review confirms that controlled-release systems can lower overall costs compared to conventional dosing. From a patient-centric perspective, these benefits contribute to improved , particularly for chronic conditions such as and , where consistent reduces symptom variability and enhances daily functioning. Once-daily modified-release antihypertensives, for example, support better control and tolerability, leading to gains in physical vitality and emotional well-being. In , extended-release opioids provide steady relief, including better nighttime control, which minimizes disruptions and boosts overall health-related measures.

Challenges and Considerations

Formulation and manufacturing issues

Formulating forms presents significant challenges in achieving uniform release profiles, particularly during scale-up from to production scales, where variations in processing parameters can lead to inconsistencies in release kinetics. stability is another critical hurdle, as many polymers used in these systems, such as acrylic derivatives, are susceptible to degradation under or mechanical stresses during , potentially altering the matrix integrity and release mechanisms. Drug-excipient interactions further complicate , as incompatibilities between active pharmaceutical ingredients and polymers can result in , , or altered dissolution rates, necessitating compatibility studies to ensure robustness. Key manufacturing techniques for modified-release formulations include hot-melt extrusion (HME), which involves melting and to form homogeneous extrudates for sustained release matrices, offering advantages in processing poorly soluble without solvents. Fluid-bed is widely employed to apply polymer layers onto drug cores, enabling precise control over release by adjusting thickness and composition, though it requires optimization to avoid agglomeration or uneven distribution. in these processes relies heavily on using USP apparatuses, such as Apparatus 2 (paddle) for standard profiles and Apparatus 4 (flow-through cell) for extended-release forms, to verify release uniformity and batch-to-batch consistency as per pharmacopeial standards. As of 2025, supply chain disruptions in the have affected manufacturing of modified-release formulations, including shortages of excipients like polymers due to tariffs, global reliance on foreign sources, and geopolitical factors, leading to delays in production. Emerging technologies like for personalized modified-release dosage forms face variability challenges, including inconsistencies in filament extrusion and layer deposition that affect dose accuracy and release predictability across units. Stability concerns in modified-release systems often stem from humidity effects on coatings, where elevated moisture levels can plasticize polymer films, increasing permeability and accelerating unintended drug release. Shelf-life extension strategies include the use of moisture-barrier coatings, such as those incorporating ethylcellulose or , and incorporation of desiccants in packaging to maintain low and preserve coating integrity over time. These approaches, combined with accelerated stability testing under controlled conditions, help mitigate degradation and ensure long-term performance.

Pill splitting and dose manipulation risks

Pill splitting and dose manipulation of modified-release dosage forms pose significant risks due to the potential disruption of the controlled drug release mechanisms designed to provide sustained therapeutic effects. Altering these formulations, such as by splitting, crushing, or chewing tablets, can lead to , where the entire drug payload is released rapidly, resulting in supratherapeutic plasma concentrations and increased toxicity. This altered can cause severe adverse effects, including cardiovascular instability or respiratory depression, depending on the . A primary concern is the heightened of overdose, particularly with opioid-based modified-release products. For instance, crushing extended-release tablets like OxyContin can result in uncontrolled delivery of the drug, leading to potentially fatal respiratory depression and overdose. Similarly, manipulation of other extended-release opioids, such as formulations, compromises the abuse-deterrent properties and elevates the potential for misuse, contributing to and accidental . Specific examples highlight these dangers in non-opioid contexts as well. Metoprolol succinate extended-release tablets, used for and management, are not scored and should not be split, as doing so destroys the matrix that ensures gradual release, potentially causing rapid absorption, excessive beta-blockade, and risks like or . Non-scored extended-release tablets in general lack the structural integrity for safe division, leading to uneven dosing and inconsistent therapeutic outcomes. Regulatory bodies strongly advise against such manipulations unless explicitly designed for it. The U.S. (FDA) recommends that modified-release products not be split if it compromises release control, and only scored tablets approved in labeling should be divided, with professional guidance. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) echoes this, stating that to preserve modified-release properties, tablets must not be split, broken, crushed, or chewed, emphasizing bisectable coatings or scoring only for intentionally divisible formulations. To mitigate these risks, alternatives such as formulations or adjustable dosing devices are preferable for patients requiring dose customization. Oral s for drugs like metoprolol or opioids allow precise without altering release profiles, while specialized devices can convert compatible tablets into suspensions, maintaining therapeutic intent. These options enhance safety and compliance, avoiding the pitfalls of manipulation.

Regulatory guidelines and safety

The U.S. (FDA) classifies modified-release dosage forms into categories such as extended-release (ER), which are designed to release the drug over an extended period to reduce dosing frequency compared to immediate-release forms; sustained-release (SR), often used interchangeably with ER to indicate prolonged drug release; and delayed-release (DR), which delays drug release until after a specific time post-administration, such as through to protect against . For bioequivalence assessments, the FDA requires comparison of dissolution profiles using the model-independent similarity factor f2f_2, calculated as f2=50log⁡{[1+1n∑t=1n(Rt−Tt)2]−0.5×100}f_2 = 50 \log \left\{ \left[1 + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{t=1}^{n} (R_t - T_t)^2 \right]^{-0.5} \times 100 \right\}, where nn is the number of time points, RtR_t is the dissolution value of the reference batch, and TtT_t is that of the test batch; an f2f_2 value between 50 and 100, with an average difference of no more than 15% at any point, indicates similarity. The (EMA) and (WHO) provide complementary guidelines emphasizing / correlations (IVIVC) for modified-release products to ensure predictable release testing. The EMA recommends establishing a Level A IVIVC, which provides a point-to-point relationship between dissolution and absorption (e.g., via Wagner-Nelson ), using at least three formulations with varying release rates differing by ≥10%; this correlation supports dissolution specifications as a surrogate for if validated with prediction errors ≤15% for key pharmacokinetic parameters. For release testing, the EMA requires discriminatory dissolution methods under sink conditions (drug concentration <30% saturation) across 1–7.5, with specifications at ≥3 time points (e.g., 20–30%, 50%, and 80% dissolved) and variability ≤10% unless justified. The WHO aligns with these principles in its guidelines for multisource pharmaceutical products, requiring dissolution profile comparisons for modified-release forms with criteria similar to immediate-release but including multiple-dose studies if single-dose profiles fail similarity (e.g., via f2≥50f_2 \geq 50), and stresses IVIVC where possible to support interchangeability. Safety considerations in regulatory frameworks focus on mitigating risks like , where premature release of the entire drug load can lead to . The FDA mandates dissolution testing with early time points (e.g., 1, 2, and 4 hours) to detect potential dose dumping, particularly in stability and alcohol-induced studies using concentrations up to 40% to simulate co-ingestion risks, as rapid release in such conditions may exceed safe levels. Labeling requirements include explicit warnings in the dosage and administration section, such as "do not split, crush, or chew" for ER and DR forms to prevent unintended release, with these instructions integrated into prescribing information to ensure . As of 2025, the FDA has required updates to prescribing information for long-acting opioid pain medicines to address long-term use risks, including addiction (1-6% developing opioid use disorder) and overdose (1.5-4% cumulative incidence over 5 years), mandating mentions of reversal agents like naloxone and warnings on interactions with CNS depressants such as gabapentinoids. In September 2025, the FDA issued guidance to expand non-opioid options for chronic pain management, aiming to reduce reliance on opioids and associated misuse risks. For long-term implants, pharmacovigilance guidelines from the FDA and EMA require ongoing surveillance through risk management plans. The EMA's Regulatory Science Strategy to 2025 emphasizes generating guidance on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic requirements and long-term efficacy and safety for novel therapies involving new materials, alongside integration of real-world evidence for decision-making throughout the product lifecycle.

Historical Development

Early innovations (pre-1970s)

The origins of modified-release dosage forms trace back to the late , when early efforts focused on protecting the stomach from harsh drugs while enabling intestinal release. In 1884, German pharmacologist Paul Unna introduced the first gastro-resistant coatings using on pills, aiming to delay dissolution until reaching the alkaline environment of the ; this innovation addressed gastric irritation from substances like and marked a foundational step in site-specific . Unna's work, detailed in publications such as Pharmazeutische Zentralhalle, built on prior observations of insoluble materials but was the first systematic application for therapeutic purposes, influencing subsequent coating techniques with materials like and cellulose derivatives. Post-World War II pharmaceutical advancements accelerated the pursuit of prolonged-action formulations, driven by the urgent need to optimize delivery of antibiotics and hormones amid rising infectious diseases and endocrine therapies. The wartime scaling of penicillin production revealed limitations in frequent dosing, prompting research into sustained-release systems to enhance efficacy, reduce side effects, and improve adherence for agents like sulfonamides and steroid hormones. This era saw government and industry investments in novel delivery, as evidenced by U.S. military-funded studies on extended antibiotic action to combat battlefield infections. In the and , practical innovations emerged, including wax matrix tablets that embedded drugs in hydrophobic wax bases to control erosion and diffusion-based release over hours. In the , introduced Spansule capsules, using to achieve sustained release over 8-12 hours for drugs like , marking an early commercial success in extended-release technology. A notable example was the 1959 commercialization of by as tablets, which improved absorption of this agent against dermatophytes but still required multiple daily doses, highlighting the need for extended-release innovations. Concurrently, ion-exchange resins gained traction for oral liquids, where drugs were complexed with resin particles to enable pH- and electrolyte-dependent release; early applications in the targeted and taste-masking for antibiotics like penicillin, with commercial products demonstrating sustained in gastrointestinal fluids. These resins, pioneered through patents in the mid-1950s, allowed liquid formulations to mimic solid sustained-release profiles by leveraging ionic exchange for gradual drug dissociation. Theoretical foundations also advanced, with models elucidating release kinetics from matrices and coatings. In the , researchers like those at developed empirical models for pellet-based systems, quantifying diffusion through inert barriers to predict zero-order release profiles. By the late , Felix Theeuwes at Alza conceptualized early osmotic systems, exploiting semipermeable membranes and hydrostatic pressure for constant-rate delivery independent of ; these ideas, prototyped around 1968–1969, laid groundwork for implantable and oral pumps by harnessing osmotic gradients to push solutions.

Modern advancements and key milestones

The development of modified-release dosage forms accelerated in the with the introduction of osmotic controlled-release oral delivery systems. In 1974, Alza Corporation patented the Osmotic Release Oral System (OROS), a technology utilizing semipermeable membranes to deliver drugs at a constant rate independent of gastrointestinal pH, marking a significant advancement in zero-order kinetics for oral formulations. This was followed by innovations in delivery, exemplified by the FDA approval of Nicoderm in 1991, a that provided sustained release over 24 hours to aid , reducing the need for frequent dosing. The 2000s saw further refinements in site-specific delivery, including gastroretentive technologies designed to prolong drug residence in the . DepoMed's AcuForm , approved in 2005 for metformin in Glumetza, employed gastric-retentive polymers to extend release for better glycemic control in . Concurrently, stimuli-responsive nanocarriers gained traction, with pH- and enzyme-sensitive nanoparticles enabling targeted release in tumor microenvironments, as demonstrated in preclinical studies from the mid-2000s that improved of chemotherapeutics. A key regulatory milestone was the 2009 ICH Q8 guideline on Pharmaceutical Development, which formalized Quality by Design (QbD) principles to enhance formulation predictability and manufacturing consistency in modified-release systems. From the 2010s to 2025, advancements integrated digital and biological technologies for precision delivery. The FDA approved Spritam in 2015, the first 3D-printed modified-release tablet using Aprecia's ZipDose technology, which facilitated rapid disintegration and precise dosing of for patients. Expansions in enabled patient-specific formulations by 2020, allowing customized release profiles based on individual . In targeted therapies, CRISPR-enabled systems for controlled editing release emerged around 2020, with lipid nanoparticles incorporating CRISPR-Cas9 for sustained intracellular delivery in therapies. AI-optimized formulations advanced , using models by 2023 to predict and design matrices for individualized release kinetics in oral and injectable . The rise of biologics in modified-release injectables was highlighted by long-acting formulations like exenatide extended-release (Bydureon) approved in 2012, extending dosing intervals to weekly for management.

References

  1. https://www.fda.gov/media/70956/download
  2. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-pharmacokinetic-and-clinical-evaluation-modified-release-dosage-forms_en.pdf
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2895434/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6321440/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8912140/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8512302/
  7. https://www.fda.gov/media/70936/download
  8. https://www.fda.gov/industry/generic-drug-user-fee-amendments/fy2015-regulatory-science-research-report-modified-release-drug-products-therapeutic-equivalence
  9. https://touroscholar.touro.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=sjlcas
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2691467/
  11. https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Food-Effect-Bioavailability-and-Fed-Bioequivalence-Studies.pdf
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2846103/
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389880578_Mechanisms_of_Controlled_Release
  14. https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/diffusion-controlled-dds/82282275
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215538011_Factors_Affecting_Mechanism_and_Kinetics_of_Drug_Release_from_Matrix-Based_Oral_Controlled_Drug_Delivery_Systems
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5698581/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6401754/
  18. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cbc3/738ed14f5ff6728e0e342bd823b1e5de1b6b.pdf
  19. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.0c00614
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065237703290062
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2864484/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5659326/
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1773224719302722
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3648939/
  25. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-76089-z
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165022X06000650
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11510853/
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168365924004681
  29. https://ijpras.com/storage/models/article/wcvDGp04NwBZ0OAlbaOx6WMrNeVmOqHtaYpRUPO20bxvtjblJuXPWL5QqwxE/osmotic-drug-delivery-system-an-overview.pdf
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9697821/
  31. https://www.thepharmajournal.com/archives/2012/vol1issue7/PartA/23.1.pdf
  32. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/020329s22lbl.pdf
  33. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2007/021121s014lbl.pdf
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318283551_An_overview_of_Osmotic_Drug_Delivery_System_An_update_review
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2472630322016594
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/dose-dumping
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1740674918300040
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022354915436639
  39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7229946/
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590156719300374
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6523542/
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4110563/
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3053525/
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9785024/
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2680154/
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4532171/
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/nuvaring
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016421002668
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1818087616300320
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12305734/
  51. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4983/10/3/34
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8493545/
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7182829/
  54. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Enzyme-activated-intracellular-drug-delivery-with-Dzamukova-Naumenko/eae786186c984712b4df826d768c74e54f2c2d46
  55. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adtp.201800011
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8881671/
  57. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/020553s060lbl.pdf
  58. https://www.mass.gov/doc/embeda-drug-monograph-amended/download
  59. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537052/
  60. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/020699s107lbl.pdf
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2626917/
  62. https://www.targetedonc.com/view/fda-approves-3-month-leuprolide-mesylate-formulation-for-advanced-prostate-cancer
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12319290/
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12567491/
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6957633/
  66. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40274-020-6779-4
  67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8043223/
  68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26335096/
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14512137/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168365997000370
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8109605/
  72. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19019047/
  73. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK570316/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9257448/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9415771/
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4766118/
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1773224724005537
  78. https://www.usp.org/small-molecules/dissolution
  79. https://www.zs.com/insights/us-pharma-policy-strategies-to-future-proof-your-supply-chain
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169409X24003260
  81. https://rijournals.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/RIJEP-41-P8-2025.pdf
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0939641199000880
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6781284/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9611293/
  85. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/buying-using-medicine-safely/tablet-splitting
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9680753/
  87. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2023/022272s048lbl.pdf
  88. https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Opioid-Analgesics-Extended-Release-and-Long-Acting.pdf
  89. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/019962s038lbl.pdf
  90. https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-long-does-metoprolol-stay-in-your-system-8416769
  91. https://www.fda.gov/media/81626/download
  92. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/presentation/presentation-section-42-posology-method-administration_en.pdf
  93. https://enclarapharmacia.com/palliative-pearls/crushing-opening-and-splitting-oral-dosage-forms
  94. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-quality-oral-modified-release-products_en.pdf
  95. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/medicines/norms-and-standards/guidelines/regulatory-standards/trs1003-annex6-who-multisource-pharmaceutical-products-interchangeability.pdf
  96. https://www.drugdeliveryleader.com/doc/avoiding-alcohol-induced-dose-dumping-in-oral-drug-formulation-0001
  97. https://www.fda.gov/media/169646/download
  98. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requiring-opioid-pain-medicine-manufacturers-update-prescribing-information-regarding-long-term
  99. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-issues-new-guidance-expand-non-opioid-options-chronic-pain-curb-misuse
  100. https://www.ema.europa.eu/system/files/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/ema_regulatory_science_to_2025_en.pdf
  101. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/post-authorisation/pharmacovigilance-post-authorisation/good-pharmacovigilance-practices-gvp
  102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095955315303863
  103. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41109385
  104. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33457/w33457.pdf
  105. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300693
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9610072/
  107. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ed082p575
  108. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231267026_Pharmaceutical_Applications_of_Ion-Exchange_Resins
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8840987/
  110. https://basicmedicalkey.com/historical-introduction-to-the-field-of-controlled-drug-delivery/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.