AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 19, Issue 8, pp 3609–3630 | Cite as

Lipid-Based Oral Formulation Strategies for Lipophilic Drugs

  • Vivek Patel
  • Rohan Lalani
  • Denish Bardoliwala
  • Saikat Ghosh
  • Ambikanandan MisraEmail author
Review Article Theme: Lipid-Based Drug Delivery Strategies for Oral Drug Delivery
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Theme: Lipid-Based Drug Delivery Strategies for Oral Drug Delivery


Partition coefficient (log P) is a key physicochemical characteristic of lipophilic drugs which plays a significant role in formulation development for oral administration. Lipid-based formulation strategies can increase lymphatic transport of these drugs and can enhance bioavailability many folds. The number of lipophilic drugs in pharmacopoeias and under discovery are continuously increasing and making the job of the formulation scientist difficult to develop suitable formulation of these drugs due to potent nature and water insolubility of these drugs. Recently, many natural and synthetic lipids are appearing in the market which are helpful in the development of lipid-based formulations of these types of drugs having enhanced solubility and bioavailability. One such reason for this enhanced bioavailability is the accessibility of the lymphatic transport as well as avoidance of first-pass effect. This review discusses the impact of lipophilicity in enhancing the intestinal lymphatic drug transport thereby reducing first-pass metabolism. The most appropriate strategy for developing a lipid-based formulation depending upon the degree of lipophilicity has been critically discussed and provides information on how to develop optimum formulation. Various formulation strategies are discussed in-depth by classifying lipid-based oral drug delivery systems with case studies of few marketed formulations with challenges and opportunities for the future of the formulations.


oral lipid delivery lymphatic system lipophilicity formulation lipid system triglycerides 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Prabhu S, Ortega M, Ma C. Novel lipid-based formulations enhancing the in vitro dissolution and permeability characteristics of a poorly water-soluble model drug, piroxicam. Int J Pharm. 2005;301(1–2):209–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lipinski CA. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2000;44(1):235–49.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Porter CJ, Charman WN. In vitro assessment of oral lipid based formulations. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;50:S127–S47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tiwle R, Giri TK, Tripathi DK, Jain V, Alexander A. An exhaustive review on solubility enhancement for hydrophobic compounds by possible applications of novel techniques. Trends Appl Sci Res. 2012;7(8):596.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaudhary A, Nagaich U, Gulati N, Sharma V, Khosa R, Partapur M. Enhancement of solubilization and bioavailability of poorly soluble drugs by physical and chemical modifications: a recent review. J Adv Pharm Educ Res. 2012;2(1):32–67.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pouton CW. Formulation of poorly water-soluble drugs for oral administration: physicochemical and physiological issues and the lipid formulation classification system. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2006;29(3–4):278–87.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jannin V, Musakhanian J, Marchaud D. Approaches for the development of solid and semi-solid lipid-based formulations. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2008;60(6):734–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Charman WN, Porter CJ, Mithani S, Dressman JB. Physicochemical and physiological mechanisms for the effects of food on drug absorption: the role of lipids and pH. J Pharm Sci. 1997;86(3):269–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fleisher D, Li C, Zhou Y, Pao L-H, Karim A. Drug, meal and formulation interactions influencing drug absorption after oral administration. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1999;36(3):233–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sahbaz Y, Williams HD, Nguyen T-H, Saunders J, Ford L, Charman SA, et al. Transformation of poorly water-soluble drugs into lipophilic ionic liquids enhances oral drug exposure from lipid based formulations. Mol Pharm. 2015;12(6):1980–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yin N, Brimble M, Harris P, Wen J. Enhancing the oral bioavailability of peptide drugs by using chemical modification and other approaches. Med Chem. 2014;4:763–9.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patil S, Vhora I, Amrutiya J, Lalani R, Misra A. Role of nanotechnology in delivery of protein and peptide drugs. Curr Pharm Des. 2015;21(29):4155–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    New RR, Kirby CJ. Solubilisation of hydrophilic drugs in oily formulations. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1997;25(1):59–69.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shiau Y-F. In: Johnson LR, editor. Lipid digestion and absorption. 2nd ed. New York: Raven; 1986. p. 1527–56.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang C-S. Hydrolysis of dietary glycerides and phosphoglycerides: fatty acid and positional specificity of lipases and phospholipases. Fat absorption: CRC Press; 2018. p. 83–118.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hunt J, Knox M. A relation between the chain length of fatty acids and the slowing of gastric emptying. J Physiol. 1968;194(2):327–36.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gibson L. Lipid-based excipients for oral drug delivery. Drugs and the Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2007;170:33.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pouton CW. Lipid formulations for oral administration of drugs: non-emulsifying, self-emulsifying and ‘self-microemulsifying’ drug delivery systems. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2000;11:S93–S8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hauss DJ, Fogal SE, Ficorilli JV, Price CA, Roy T, Jayaraj AA, et al. Lipid-based delivery systems for improving the bioavailability and lymphatic transport of a poorly water-soluble LTB4 inhibitor. J Pharm Sci. 1998;87(2):164–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pouton CW, Porter CJ. Formulation of lipid-based delivery systems for oral administration: materials, methods and strategies. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2008;60(6):625–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Charman W, Stella V. Estimating the maximal potential for intestinal lymphatic transport of lipophilic drug molecules. Int J Pharm. 1986;34(1–2):175–8.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Erlanson-Albertsson C. Pancreatic colipase. Structural and physiological aspects. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1992;1125(1):1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bosch H, Postema N. Haas GHd, Van Deenen L. On the positional specificity of phospholipase A from pancreas. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1965;98(3):657–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoffman N. The relationship between uptake in vitro of oleic acid and micellar solubilization. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr. 1970;196(2):193–203.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Westergaard H, Dietschy JM. The mechanism whereby bile acid micelles increase the rate of fatty acid and cholesterol uptake into the intestinal mucosal cell. J Clin Invest. 1976;58(1):97–108.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simmonds W. The role of micellar solubilization in lipid absorption. Aust J Exp Biol Med Sci. 1972;50(4):403–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wasan KM. Formulation and physiological and biopharmaceutical issues in the development of oral lipid-based drug delivery systems. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2001;27(4):267–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kalepu S, Manthina M, Padavala V. Oral lipid-based drug delivery systems—an overview. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2013;3(6):361–72.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pouton CW, Charman WN. The potential of oily formulations for drug delivery to the gastro-intestinal tract. Elsevier; 1997.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ananthakrishnan P, Mariani G, Moresco L, Giuliano AE. The anatomy and physiology of lymphatic circulation. Radioguided Surgery: Springer; 2008. p. 57–71.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hiroshi Y, Shozo M, Chiharu K, Hitoshi S. Bifunctional delivery system for selective transfer of bleomycin into lymphatics via enteral route. Int J Pharm. 1981;8(4):291–302.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Beier R, Gebert A. Kinetics of particle uptake in the domes of Peyer’s patches. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 1998;275(1):G130–G7.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eldridge JH, Hammond CJ, Meulbroek JA, Staas JK, Gilley RM, Tice TR. Controlled vaccine release in the gut-associated lymphoid tissues. I. Orally administered biodegradable microspheres target the Peyer’s patches. J Control Release. 1990;11(1–3):205–14.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ahn H, Park J-H. Liposomal delivery systems for intestinal lymphatic drug transport. Biomater Res. 2016;20(1):36.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Iqbal J, Hussain MM. Intestinal lipid absorption. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2009;296(6):E1183–E94.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wilson FA, Dietschy JM. The intestinal unstirred layer: its surface area and effect on active transport kinetics. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr. 1974;363(1):112–26.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thomson A, Schoeller C, Keelan M, Smith L, Clandinin M. Lipid absorptions passing through the unstirred layers, brush-border membrane, and beyond. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1993;71(8):531–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Humberstone AJ, Charman WN. Lipid-based vehicles for the oral delivery of poorly water soluble drugs. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1997;25(1):103–28.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yáñez JA, Wang SW, Knemeyer IW, Wirth MA, Alton KB. Intestinal lymphatic transport for drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011;63(10–11):923–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wacher VJ, Silverman JA, Zhang Y, Benet LZ. Role of P-glycoprotein and cytochrome P450 3A in limiting oral absorption of peptides and peptidomimetics. J Pharm Sci. 1998;87(11):1322–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Borst P, Schinkel A, Smit J, Wagenaar E, Van Deemter L, Smith A, et al. Classical and novel forms of multidrug resistance and the physiological functions of P-glycoproteins in mammals. Pharmacol Ther. 1993;60(2):289–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thiebaut F, Tsuruo T, Hamada H, Gottesman MM, Pastan I, Willingham MC. Cellular localization of the multidrug-resistance gene product P-glycoprotein in normal human tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1987;84(21):7735–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Parkinson A. An overview of current cytochrome P450 technology for assessing the safety and efficacy of new materials. Toxicol Pathol. 1996;24(1):45–57.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wacher VJ, Salphati L, Benet LZ. Active secretion and enterocytic drug metabolism barriers to drug absorption. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1996;20(1):99–112.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zordan-Nudo T, Ling V, Liu Z, Georges E. Effects of nonionic detergents on P-glycoprotein drug binding and reversal of multidrug resistance. Cancer Res. 1993;53(24):5994–6000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Batrakova EV, Li S, Miller DW, Kabanov AV. Pluronic P85 increases permeability of a broad spectrum of drugs in polarized BBMEC and Caco-2 cell monolayers. Pharm Res. 1999;16(9):1366–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Regev R, Assaraf YG, Eytan GD. Membrane fluidization by ether, other anesthetics, and certain agents abolishes P-glycoprotein ATPase activity and modulates efflux from multidrug-resistant cells. FEBS J. 1999;259(1–2):18–24.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yoo J-SH, Smith TJ, Ning SM, Mao-Jung L, Thomas PE, Yang CS. Modulation of the levels of cytochromes P450 in rat liver and lung by dietary lipid. Biochem Pharmacol. 1992;43(12):2535–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Soldner A, Christians U, Susanto M, Wacher VJ, Silverman JA, Benet LZ. Grapefruit juice activates P-glycoprotein-mediated drug transport. Pharm Res. 1999;16(4):478–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dahan A, Hoffman A. Rationalizing the selection of oral lipid based drug delivery systems by an in vitro dynamic lipolysis model for improved oral bioavailability of poorly water soluble drugs. J Control Release. 2008;129(1):1–10.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Savla R, Browne J, Plassat V, Wasan KM, Wasan EK. Review and analysis of FDA approved drugs using lipid-based formulations. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2017;43(11):1743–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Feeney OM, Crum MF, McEvoy CL, Trevaskis NL, Williams HD, Pouton CW, et al. 50 years of oral lipid-based formulations: provenance, progress and future perspectives. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;101:167–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Strickley RG. Currently marketed oral lipid-based dosage forms: drug products and excipients. Drugs and the Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2007;170:1.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Strickley RG. Solubilizing excipients in oral and injectable formulations. Pharm Res. 2004;21(2):201–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Alexander A. A review on novel therapeutic strategies for the enhancement of solubility for hydrophobic drugs through lipid and surfactant based self micro emulsifying drug delivery system: a novel approach. Am J Drug Disc Dev. 2012;2(4):143–83.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Charman WN, Porter CJ. Oral lipid-based formulations: using preclinical data to dictate formulation strategies for poorly water-soluble drugs. Oral lipid-based formulations: CRC Press; 2007. p. 207–28.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Griffin B. Advances in lipid-based formulations: overcoming the challenge of low bioavailability for poorly water soluble drug compounds. Am Pharm Rev [Consulted February 11, 2016]. 2012.
  58. 58.
    MacGregor KJ, Embleton JK, Lacy JE, Perry EA, Solomon LJ, Seager H, et al. Influence of lipolysis on drug absorption from the gastro-intestinal tract. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1997;25(1):33–46.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kahan BD, Dunn J, Fitts C, Van DB, Wombolt D, Pollak R, et al. Reduced inter- and intrasubject variability in cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in renal transplant recipients treated with a microemulsion formulation in conjunction with fasting, low-fat meals, or high-fat meals. Transplantation. 1995;59(4):505–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mendez R, Abboud H, Burdick J, Copley B, Freeman R, Batiuk TD, et al. Reduced intrapatient variability of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in renal transplant recipients switched from oral Sandimmune to Neoral. Clin Ther. 1999;21(1):160–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Katneni K, Charman SA, Porter CJ. Impact of Cremophor-EL and Polysorbate-80 on digoxin permeability across rat jejunum: delineation of thermodynamic and transporter related events using the reciprocal permeability approach. J Pharm Sci. 2007;96(2):280–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kim AE, Dintaman JM, Waddell DS, Silverman JA. Saquinavir, an HIV protease inhibitor, is transported by P-glycoprotein. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998;286(3):1439–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Schmitt C, Kaeser B, Riek M, Bech N, Kreuzer C. Effect of saquinavir/ritonavir on P-glycoprotein activity in healthy volunteers using digoxin as a probe. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;48(3):192–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Perloff MD, Von Moltke LL, Marchand JE, Greenblatt DJ. Ritonavir induces P-glycoprotein expression, multidrug resistance-associated protein (MRP1) expression, and drug transporter-mediated activity in a human intestinal cell line. J Pharm Sci. 2001;90(11):1829–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chen XQGO, Hageman MJ. Application of lipid-based formulations in drug discovery. J Med Chem. 2012;55:7945–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gao P, Morozowich W. Case studies: rational development of self-emulsifying formulations for improving the oral bioavailability of poorly soluble, lipophilic drugs. Drugs and the Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2007;170:273.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Backman TW, Cao Y, Girke T. ChemMine tools: an online service for analyzing and clustering small molecules. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(suppl_2):W486–W91.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Constantinides PP, Wasan KM. Lipid formulation strategies for enhancing intestinal transport and absorption of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) substrate drugs: in vitro/In vivo case studies. J Pharm Sci. 2007;96(2):235–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Aungst BJ. Absorption enhancers: applications and advances. AAPS J. 2012;14(1):10–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Akhtar N, Ahad A, Khar RK, Jaggi M, Aqil M, Iqbal Z, et al. The emerging role of P-glycoprotein inhibitors in drug delivery: a patent review. Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2011;21(4):561–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kayser O, Olbrich C, Yardley V, Kiderlen A, Croft S. Formulation of amphotericin B as nanosuspension for oral administration. Int J Pharm. 2003;254(1):73–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lindmark T, Kimura Y, Artursson P. Absorption enhancement through intracellular regulation of tight junction permeability by medium chain fatty acids in Caco-2 cells. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998;284(1):362–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng H-Y, Smith BR, Ward KW, Kopple KD. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem. 2002;45(12):2615–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Flaten GE, Luthman K, Vasskog T, Brandl M. Drug permeability across a phospholipid vesicle-based barrier: 4. The effect of tensides, co-solvents and pH changes on barrier integrity and on drug permeability. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2008;34(2–3):173–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Müllertz A, Ogbonna A, Ren S, Rades T. New perspectives on lipid and surfactant based drug delivery systems for oral delivery of poorly soluble drugs. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2010;62(11):1622–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bajusz D, Rácz A, Héberger K. Why is Tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations? J Chem Inf. 2015;7(1):20.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Stuchlík M, Zak S. Lipid-based vehicle for oral drug delivery. Biomed Pap. 2001;145(2):17–26.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Porter CJ, Trevaskis NL, Charman WN. Lipids and lipid-based formulations: optimizing the oral delivery of lipophilic drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007;6(3):231.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hauss DJ. Oral lipid-based formulations. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2007;59(7):667–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hauss DJ. Oral lipid-based formulations: enhancing the bioavailability of poorly water-soluble drugs. CRC Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    van Oss CJ. Nonionic surfactants: physical chemistry (surfactant science series Vol. 23). MJ Schick (ed) Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel, 1987, pp. xv + 1136, $225.00. J Dispers Sci Technol. 1990;11(4):437–8.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Attwood D, Florence A. Surfactant systems—their chemistry, pharmacy and biology. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1983.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Padley FB, Gunstone FD, Harwood JL. Occurrence and characteristics of oils and fats. The lipid handbook. Berlin: Springer; 1986. p. 49–170.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Chen M-L. Lipid excipients and delivery systems for pharmaceutical development: a regulatory perspective. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2008;60(6):768–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Maincent P. The regulatory environment: the challenges for lipid-based formulation. Bulletin Technique Gattefossé. 2007;100:47–9.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Inactive ingredient guide. Division of Drug Information Resources. [Internet]. Office of Management, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration. 1996. Available from:
  87. 87.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 182, 184, 186. Office of the Federal Register [Internet]. National Archives and Records Administration. 2007.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ghosh S, Roy T. Nanoparticulate drug-delivery systems: lymphatic uptake and its gastrointestinal applications. 2014 [cited 4 06]. 123–30].Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Guidance for Industry: Nonclinical studies for the safety evaluation of pharmaceutical excipients. Office of Training and Communication, Division of Drug Information, HFD-240, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, or Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance, HFM-40, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration; 2005.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Mukherjee B, Maji R, Roychowdhury S, Ghosh S. Toxicological concerns of engineered nanosize drug delivery systems. Am J Ther. 2016;23(1):e139–e50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Szebeni J, Muggia F, Gabizon A, Barenholz Y. Activation of complement by therapeutic liposomes and other lipid excipient-based therapeutic products: prediction and prevention. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011;63(12):1020–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kaukonen AM, Boyd BJ, Porter CJ, Charman WN. Drug solubilization behavior during in vitro digestion of simple triglyceride lipid solution formulations. Pharm Res. 2004;21(2):245–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Pouton CW. Formulation of self-emulsifying drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1997;25(1):47–58.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Pouton CW. Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems: assessment of the efficiency of emulsification. Int J Pharm. 1985;27(2–3):335–48.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Rowe RC, Sheskey PJ, Owen SC. Handbook of pharmaceutical excipients. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Schick MJ. Nonionic surfactants: physical chemistry. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Shono Y, Nishihara H, Matsuda Y, Furukawa S, Okada N, Fujita T, et al. Modulation of intestinal P-glycoprotein function by cremophor EL and other surfactants by an in vitro diffusion chamber method using the isolated rat intestinal membranes. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93(4):877–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Hugger ED, Novak BL, Burton PS, Audus KL, Borchardt RT. A comparison of commonly used polyethoxylated pharmaceutical excipients on their ability to inhibit P-glycoprotein activity in vitro. J Pharm Sci. 2002;91(9):1991–2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Cole ET, Cadé D, Benameur H. Challenges and opportunities in the encapsulation of liquid and semi-solid formulations into capsules for oral administration. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2008;60(6):747–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Cullis PR, Hope MJ, Tilcock CP. Lipid polymorphism and the roles of lipids in membranes. Chem Phys Lipids. 1986;40(2–4):127–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Hafez IM, Cullis PR. Roles of lipid polymorphism in intracellular delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;47(2–3):139–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Holm R, Porter CJ, Edwards GA, Müllertz A, Kristensen HG, Charman WN. Examination of oral absorption and lymphatic transport of halofantrine in a triple-cannulated canine model after administration in self-microemulsifying drug delivery systems (SMEDDS) containing structured triglycerides. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2003;20(1):91–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Cavalli R, Zara GP, Caputo O, Bargoni A, Fundarò A, Gasco MR. Transmucosal transport of tobramycin incorporated in SLN after duodenal administration to rats. Part I—a pharmacokinetic study. Pharmacol Res. 2000;42(6):541–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Bargoni A, Cavalli R, Caputo O, Fundarò A, Gasco MR, Zara GP. Solid lipid nanoparticles in lymph and plasma after duodenal administration to rats. Pharm Res. 1998;15(5):745–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Battaglia L, Serpe L, Muntoni E, Zara G, Trotta M, Gallarate M. Methotrexate-loaded SLNs prepared by coacervation technique: in vitro cytotoxicity and in vivo pharmacokinetics and biodistribution. Nanomedicine. 2011;6(9):1561–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Manjunath K, Venkateswarlu V. Pharmacokinetics, tissue distribution and bioavailability of nitrendipine solid lipid nanoparticles after intravenous and intraduodenal administration. J Drug Target. 2006;14(9):632–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Makwana V, Jain R, Patel K, Nivsarkar M, Joshi A. Solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) of Efavirenz as lymph targeting drug delivery system: elucidation of mechanism of uptake using chylomicron flow blocking approach. Int J Pharm. 2015;495(1):439–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Shete H, Chatterjee S, De A, Patravale V. Long chain lipid based tamoxifen NLC. Part II: pharmacokinetic, biodistribution and in vitro anticancer efficacy studies. Int J Pharm. 2013;454(1):584–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Zhang T, Chen J, Zhang Y, Shen Q, Pan W. Characterization and evaluation of nanostructured lipid carrier as a vehicle for oral delivery of etoposide. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2011;43(3):174–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Myers R, Stella V. Factors affecting the lymphatic transport of penclomedine (NSC-338720), a lipophilic cytotoxic drug: comparison to DDT and hexachlorobenzene. Int J Pharm. 1992;80(1–3):51–62.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Gursoy RN, Benita S. Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems (SEDDS) for improved oral delivery of lipophilic drugs. Biomed Pharmacother. 2004;58(3):173–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Woo JS, Kim T-S, Park J-H, Chi S-C. Formulation and biopharmaceutical evaluation of silymarin using SMEDDS. Arch Pharm Res. 2007;30(1):82–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Khumpirapang N, Pikulkaew S, Müllertz A, Rades T, Okonogi S. Self-microemulsifying drug delivery system and nanoemulsion for enhancing aqueous miscibility of Alpinia galanga oil. PloS One. 2017;12(11):e0188848.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Thakkar H, Nangesh J, Parmar M, Patel D. Formulation and characterization of lipid-based drug delivery system of raloxifene-microemulsion and self-microemulsifying drug delivery system. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011;3(3):442.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Chen Y, Li G, Wu X, Chen Z, Hang J, Qin B, et al. Self-microemulsifying drug delivery system (SMEDDS) of vinpocetine: formulation development and in vivo assessment. Biol Pharm Bull. 2008;31(1):118–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Nishioka Y, Yoshino H. Lymphatic targeting with nanoparticulate system. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;47(1):55–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Sheue Nee Ling S, Magosso E, Abdul Karim Khan N, Hay Yuen K, Anne Barker S. Enhanced oral bioavailability and intestinal lymphatic transport of a hydrophilic drug using liposomes. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2006;32(3):335–45.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Perrie Y, Obrenovic M, McCarthy D, Gregoriadis G. Liposome (Lipodine™)-mediated DNA vaccination by the oral route. Journal of Liposome Research. 2002;12(1–2):185–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Li H, Song J-H, Park J-S, Han K. Polyethylene glycol-coated liposomes for oral delivery of recombinant human epidermal growth factor. Int J Pharm. 2003;258(1–2):11–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Larsen DB, Joergensen S, Olsen NV, Hansen SH, Larsen C. In vivo release of bupivacaine from subcutaneously administered oily solution. Comparison with in vitro release. J Control Release. 2002;81(1–2):145–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Gill KK, Kaddoumi A, Nazzal S. Mixed micelles of PEG2000-DSPE and vitamin-E TPGS for concurrent delivery of paclitaxel and parthenolide: enhanced chemosenstization and antitumor efficacy against non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell lines. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2012;46(1–2):64–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Passerini N, Albertini B, Perissutti B, Rodriguez L. Evaluation of melt granulation and ultrasonic spray congealing as techniques to enhance the dissolution of praziquantel. Int J Pharm. 2006;318(1–2):92–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Chauhan B, Shimpi S, Paradkar A. Preparation and evaluation of glibenclamide-polyglycolized glycerides solid dispersions with silicon dioxide by spray drying technique. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2005;26(2):219–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Chauhan B, Shimpi S, Paradkar A. Preparation and characterization of etoricoxib solid dispersions using lipid carriers by spray drying technique. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2005;6(3):E405–E9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Sethia S, Squillante E. Solid dispersion of carbamazepine in PVP K30 by conventional solvent evaporation and supercritical methods. Int J Pharm. 2004;272(1–2):1–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Chen C, Han D, Cai C, Tang X. An overview of liposome lyophilization and its future potential. J Control Release. 2010;142(3):299–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Dening TJ, Rao S, Thomas N, Prestidge CA. Novel nanostructured solid materials for modulating oral drug delivery from solid-state lipid-based drug delivery systems. AAPS J. 2016;18(1):23–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Porter CJ, Charman WN. Model systems for intestinal lymphatic transport studies. Models for assessing drug absorption and metabolism. Springer; 1996. p. 85–102.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Griffin BT, O’Driscoll CM. A comparison of intestinal lymphatic transport and systemic bioavailability of saquinavir from three lipid-based formulations in the anaesthetised rat model. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2006;58(7):917–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Perry CM, Noble S. Saquinavir soft-gel capsule formulation. Drugs. 1998;55(3):461–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Dahan A, Hoffman A. The effect of different lipid based formulations on the oral absorption of lipophilic drugs: the ability of in vitro lipolysis and consecutive ex vivo intestinal permeability data to predict in vivo bioavailability in rats. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2007;67(1):96–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Hauss DJ, Fogal SE, Ficorilli Ficorilli JV. Chronic collection of mesenteric lymph from conscious, tethered rats. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 1998;37(3):56–8.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Trevaskis NL, Hu L, Caliph SM, Han S, Porter CJ. The mesenteric lymph duct cannulated rat model: application to the assessment of intestinal lymphatic drug transport. J Vis Exp. 2015;97.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Chen G-L, Hao W-H. Factors affecting zero-order release kinetics of porous gelatin capsules. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1998;24(6):557–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Kim Y-H, Koczo K, Wasan DT. Dynamic film and interfacial tensions in emulsion and foam systems. J Colloid Interface Sci. 1997;187(1):29–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Yang S, Simmonds RS, Birch EJ. Physicochemical characterization and thermal properties of lipids from R. opacus PD630. Food and Public Health. 2014;4(3):87–92.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Shah BR, Finberg L. Single-day therapy for nutritional vitamin D-deficiency rickets: a preferred method. J Pediatr. 1994;125(3):487–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Yuan T, Qin L, Wang Z, Nie J, Guo Z, Li G, et al. Solid lipid dispersion of calcitriol with enhanced dissolution and stability. AJPS. 2013;8(1):39–47.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Singh A, Narsipur S. Cyclosporine: a commentary on brand versus generic formulation exchange. J Trans. 2011;2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of PharmacyThe Maharaja Sayajirao University of BarodaVadodaraIndia

Personalised recommendations