Sign In

A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.

In This Article

  • Summary
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Protocol
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Disclosures
  • Acknowledgements
  • Materials
  • References
  • Reprints and Permissions

Summary

Dynamic light scattering (DLS) has emerged as a suitable assay for evaluating the particle size and distribution of intravenously administered iron-carbohydrate complexes. However, the protocols lack standardization and need to be modified for each iron-carbohydrate complex analyzed. The present protocol describes the application and special considerations for the analysis of iron sucrose.

Abstract

Intravenously administered iron-carbohydrate nanoparticle complexes are widely used to treat iron deficiency. This class includes several structurally heterogeneous nanoparticle complexes, which exhibit varying sensitivity to the conditions required for the methodologies available to physicochemically characterize these agents. Currently, the critical quality attributes of iron-carbohydrate complexes have not been fully established. Dynamic light scattering (DLS) has emerged as a fundamental method to determine intact particle size and distribution. However, challenges still remain regarding the standardization of methodologies across laboratories, specific modifications required for individual iron-carbohydrate products, and how the size distribution can be best described. Importantly, the diluent and serial dilutions used must be standardized. The wide variance in approaches for sample preparation and data reporting limit the use of DLS for the comparison of iron-carbohydrate agents. Herein, we detail a robust and easily reproducible protocol to measure the size and size distribution of the iron-carbohydrate complex, iron sucrose, using the Z-average and polydispersity index.

Introduction

Iron sucrose (IS) is a colloidal solution comprised of nanoparticles consisting of a complex of a polynuclear iron-oxyhydroxide core and sucrose. IS is widely employed to treat iron deficiency among patients with a wide variety of underlying disease states who do not tolerate oral iron supplementation or for whom oral iron is not effective1. IS belongs to the drug class of complex drugs as defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is a class of drugs with complex chemistry commensurate with biologicals2. The regulatory evaluation of complex drug products may require additional orthogonal physicochemical methods and/or preclinical or clinical studies to accurately compare follow-on complex drugs3,4. This is important because several studies have reported that the use of IS versus a follow-on IS product does not produce the same clinical outcomes. This underscores the criticality of the use of novel and orthogonal characterization techniques that are suitable for detecting differences in the physicochemical properties between IS products5,6.

The accurate elucidation of the size and size distribution of IS is of clinical importance, as particle size is a major influential factor in the rate and extent of opsonization-the first critical step in the biodistribution of these complex drugs7,8. Even slight variations in the particle size and particle size distribution have been related to changes in the pharmacokinetic profile of iron-oxide nanoparticle complexes9,10. A recent study by Brandis et al. showed that particle size measured by DLS was significantly different (14.9 nm ± 0.1 nm vs. 10.1 nm ± 0.1 nm, p < 0.001) when comparing a reference listed drug and a generic sodium ferric gluconate product, respectively11. The consistent batch-to-batch quality, safety, and efficacy of iron-carbohydrate products are entirely dependent on the manufacturing process scale-up, and potential manufacturing drift must be carefully considered9. The manufacturing process may result in residual sucrose, and this will vary based on the manufacturer12. Any modifications in the manufacturing process variables can lead to significant changes in the final complex drug product with regard to the structure, complex stability, and in vivo disposition9.

To assess drug consistency and predict the drug's in vivo behavior, contemporary orthogonal analytical methodologies are required to determine the physicochemical properties of complex nanomedicines. However, there is a lack of standardization of methodologies, which can result in a high degree of interlaboratory variation in result reporting13. Despite the recognition of these challenges by global regulatory authorities and the scientific community14, most of the physicochemical characteristics of IS remain poorly defined, and the full complement of critical quality attributes in the context of available regulatory guidance documents have not been defined15. The draft product-specific guidance documents issued by the FDA for iron-carbohydrate complexes suggest DLS as a procedure to evaluate the size and size distribution of follow-on products16,17.

Several publications have detailed established DLS protocols to determine IS nanoparticle dimensions13,18. However, because the sample preparation, procedure conditions, instrumentation, and instrumentation setting parameters are different among the published methods, the DLS results cannot be directly compared in the absence of a standardized method to interpret the results13,18. The diversity in methodologies and data-reporting approaches limit the appropriate evaluation of these characteristics for comparative purposes19. Importantly, many of the DLS protocols previously published to evaluate IS do not account for the effect of the diffusion of sucrose in the suspension due to the presence of free sucrose, which has been shown to spuriously elevate the Z-average-calculated hydrodynamic radii of the nanoparticles in colloidal solutions13,18. The present protocol aims to standardize the methodology for the measurement of the particle size and distribution of IS. The method has been developed and validated for this purpose.

Protocol

1. Operating the machine

  1. Starting up the machine and software
    NOTE: Supplemental Figure S1A-D describes the steps for starting up the machine and software.
    1. Switch on the instrument at least 30 min before starting the measurements, and then start the PC.
    2. Double-click on the instrument software icon to start the program.
    3. Enter the username and password in the login window. Ensure that each user has their own account.
    4. Wait for all three black bars at the bottom right corner to light up green, indicating that the unit is ready for operation.
    5. In the case of long periods of inactivity, when the user is automatically logged out, under Security, click on Login, and re-enter the password.
  2. Creating a measurement file
    NOTE: A new measurement file is created at the beginning of each measurement day. All the measurements are listed and stored in the measurement file. For details of this procedure, see Supplemental Figure S2A-B.
    1. Create a new measurement file by clicking on File | New | Measurement File. In the opened window, select the storage location, and name the measurement file. Confirm the details by clicking on Save.
    2. To open a file, click on File | Open | Measurement File. Select the measurement file in the opened window, confirm the details by clicking on Open, select the file name, and click on Save.
  3. Printing the results
    1. Print or save the results of the system suitability test (SST) (see step 1.5) and the mean value of the sample measurement according to Supplemental Figure S3.
    2. Mark the measurement(s) in the Records View of the Measurement File.
    3. Right-click on Batch Print, and wait for another small window to open.
    4. Select the PSD Intensity report from the choices, and confirm it by clicking on OK.
  4. General procedure to start a measurement
    NOTE: The procedure for starting a measurement is described in Supplemental Figure S4A-D. Follow the path outlined below for the required unit parameter file (referred to as SOP):
    1. Select the required SOP from the dropdown list. Since the most recently used SOPs are displayed in the list, if an older SOP is needed, select Browse for SOP, and confirm by clicking on the green arrow. Once the storage location of the SOPs opens, proceed with step 1.4.2.
      NOTE: For details of the important system parameters specific for iron sucrose (e.g., equilibration time of an attenuator), see Table 1.
    2. In the opened window, make the required entries under Sample Name and Notes. Confirm by clicking on OK, and wait for the measurement window to open automatically.
    3. Start the measurement by clicking on the green Start button.
    4. Once an acoustic signal sounds at the end of the measurement, close the measurement window.
  5. System suitability test (SST) measurement
    NOTE: Do not touch the lower part of the cuvette (measuring zone). At the beginning and at the end of the sequence, measure the 20 nm particle standard.
    1. Fill ~1 mL of the undiluted particle standard into a polystyrene cuvette, and close with the lid.
      NOTE: The diluted standard prepared in step 1.5.1 can be used for 1 month.
    2. After filling, close the cuvette, and check for air bubbles. Remove air bubbles by tapping the cuvette lightly.
    3. Place the cuvette in the cell holder of the instrument with the arrow mark facing forward, and close the measuring chamber cover.
    4. Load the unit parameter SOP, and enter the following data in the start window:
      Sample Name: SST 20 nm Particle Standard
      ​Then, add a note: Identifier number and expiry date of the standard
    5. Start the measurement.
    6. After the end of the measurement when the acoustic signal sounds, close the measurement window.
    7. Print the report (see point 1.1.3).
      NOTE: The SST is passed if the particle size Z-average corresponds to the value of the certificate of analysis ± 10%.
  6. Measurement of the iron sucrose solution
    1. Pipette 0.5 mL of an IS solution with an iron content of 2% m/V into a 25 mL volumetric flask, and fill up to the mark with low-particle water (e.g. freshly deionized and filtered [pore size 0.2 µm]); this solution contains 0.4 mg Fe/mL.
      NOTE: The sample preparation in step 1.6.1. with this specific dilution was established during method development, and this was determined as the optimal dilution for this purpose.
    2. For preliminary cleaning, fill the polystyrene cuvette approximately 3/4 full with the prepared measuring solution, swirl gently, and then empty as completely as possible.
      NOTE: Do not touch the lower part of the cuvette (measuring zone), and avoid air bubbles by not shaking the cuvette.
    3. For the measurement, pipette 1 mL of the measuring solution into the cuvette, and put on a lid.
    4. Check the measuring solution in the cuvette for air bubbles. If there are air bubbles, remove them by lightly tapping the cuvette.
  7. Performing the measurement
    1. Place the plastic cuvette with the measuring solution in the device with the arrow mark facing forward, and close the lid.
    2. Load the parameter SOP (see step 1.4.1), and enter the following data in the start window:
      ​Sample Name: Batch number
    3. Start the measurement.
    4. After the end of the measurement, when the acoustic signal sounds, close the measurement window.
    5. Calculate the mean value of the six individual measurements according to Supplemental Figure S5. Mark the individual measurements in the Records View of the Measurement File, right-click on Create Average Result, add the name of the mean value under Sample Name, and confirm by clicking on OK.
    6. Wait for the software to create a new record at the end of the list, and look for the name entered and the averaged result in that record.
    7. Print the report (see step 1.1.3).

Results

The method described was validated according to ICH Q2(R1)20, which involved the measurement of test solutions under varying conditions. The precision was only 0.5% RSD for the Z-average size, while a maximum of 3.5% RSD was calculated for the PDI. The mean results from different analysts and days only differed by 0.4% for the Z-average size and 1.5% for the PDI. Statistics were calculated from 12 measurements performed by two analysts on varying days. Neither changes in the test concentration in ...

Discussion

DLS has become a fundamental assay for the determination of the size and size distribution of nanoparticles for applications in drug development and regulatory evaluation. Despite advances in DLS techniques, methodologic challenges still exist regarding the diluent selection and sample preparation, which are especially relevant for iron-carbohydrate complexes in colloidal solutions. Importantly, DLS methods for iron-carbohydrate nanomedicines have not yet been studied extensively in the biological milieu (e.g., the plasm...

Disclosures

M.B., E.P., M.W., and A.B. are employees of Vifor Pharma. G.B. is a consultant for Vifor Pharma.

Acknowledgements

None

Materials

NameCompanyCatalog NumberComments
Equipment
Zetasizer Nano ZSMalvernNAequipped with Zetasizer software 7.12, Helium Neon laser (633 nm, max. 4 mW) and 173° backscattering geometry
Materials
Disposable plastic cuvettes 
LLG-Disposable plastic cellsLLG labwareLLG-Küvetten, Makro, PS; Order number 9.406011
low-particle water (The use of freshly deionized and filtered (pore size 0.2 μm) water is recommended).
Microlitre pipette
Venofer 100 mg/5 mLVifor Pharma
Volumetric flask 25 mL
NanosphereThermo3020AParticle Standard
Software
Origin Pro v.8.5 Origin Lab Corporation

References

  1. Auerbach, M., Gafter-Gvili, A., Macdougall, I. C. Intravenous iron: A framework for changing the management of iron deficiency. Lancet Haematology. 7 (4), e342-e350 (2020).
  2. Generic drugs: FDA should make public its plans to issue and revise guidance on nonbiological complex drugs. US Government Accountability Office Available from: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-80 (2017)
  3. Klein, K., et al. The EU regulatory landscape of non-biological complex drugs (NBCDs) follow-on products: Observations and recommendations. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 133, 228-235 (2019).
  4. Astier, A., et al. How to select a nanosimilar. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1407 (1), 50-62 (2017).
  5. Rottembourg, J., Kadri, A., Leonard, E., Dansaert, A., Lafuma, A. Do two intravenous iron sucrose preparations have the same efficacy. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 26 (10), 3262-3267 (2011).
  6. Aguera, M. L., et al. Efficiency of original versus generic intravenous iron formulations in patients on haemodialysis. PLoS One. 10 (8), e0135967 (2015).
  7. Alphandery, E. Iron oxide nanoparticles for therapeutic applications. Drug Discovery Today. 25 (1), 141-149 (2020).
  8. Arami, H., Khandhar, A., Liggitt, D., Krishnan, K. M. In vivo delivery, pharmacokinetics, biodistribution and toxicity of iron oxide nanoparticles. Chemical Society Reviews. 44 (23), 8576-8607 (2015).
  9. Nikravesh, N., et al. Factors influencing safety and efficacy of intravenous iron-carbohydrate nanomedicines: From production to clinical practice. Nanomedicine. 26, 102178 (2020).
  10. Pai, A. B., et al. In vitro and in vivo DFO-chelatable labile iron release profiles among commercially available intravenous iron nanoparticle formulations. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 97, 17-23 (2018).
  11. Brandis, J. E. P., et al. Evaluation of the physicochemical properties of the iron nanoparticle drug products: Brand and generic sodium ferric gluconate. Molecular Pharmaceutics. 18 (4), 1544-1557 (2021).
  12. Di Francesco, T., Sublet, E., Borchard, G. Nanomedicines in clinical practice: Are colloidal iron sucrose ready-to-use intravenous solutions interchangeable. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 131, 69-74 (2019).
  13. Di Francesco, T., Borchard, G. A robust and easily reproducible protocol for the determination of size and size distribution of iron sucrose using dynamic light scattering. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. 152, 89-93 (2018).
  14. The Center for Research on Complex Generics. US Food and Drug Administration Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/center-research-complex-generics (2021)
  15. Drug products, including biological products, that contain nanomaterials - Guidance for industry. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. FDA-2017-D-0759. US Food and Drug Administration Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/drug-products-including-biological-products-contain-nanomaterials-guidance-industry (2022)
  16. US Food and Drug Administration. Draft guidance on ferric oxyhydroxide. US Food and Drug Administration. , (2021).
  17. Zou, P., Tyner, K., Raw, A., Lee, S. Physicochemical characterization of iron carbohydrate colloid drug products. The AAPS Journal. 19 (5), 1359-1376 (2017).
  18. D'Mello, S. R., et al. The evolving landscape of drug products containing nanomaterials in the United States. Nature Nanotechnology. 12 (6), 523-529 (2017).
  19. Q2 (R1) Validation of analytical procedures: Text and methodology guidance for industry. FDA-2017-D-6821. US Food and Drug Administration Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/q2r1-validation-analytical-procedures-text-and-methodology-guidance-industry (2005)
  20. Reflection paper on the data requirements for intravenous iron-based nano-colloidal products developed with reference to an innovator medicinal product. European Medicines Agency Available from: https://www.ema.europe.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/reflection-paper-data-requirements-intravenous-iron-based-nano-colloidal-products-developed_en.pdf (2015)
  21. Fischer, K., Schmidt, M. Pitfalls and novel applications of particle sizing by dynamic light scattering. Biomaterials. 98, 79-91 (2016).
  22. Caputo, F., et al. Asymmetric-flow field-flow fractionation for measuring particle size, drug loading and (in)stability of nanopharmaceuticals. The joint view of European Union Nanomedicine Characterization Laboratory and National Cancer Institute - Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory. Journal of Chromatography A. 1635, 461767 (2021).
  23. Yusa, S., Narain, R. Chapter 6 - Polymer characterization. Polymer Science and Nanotechnology. , 105-124 (2020).

Reprints and Permissions

Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article

Request Permission

Explore More Articles

Dynamic Light ScatteringDLS AnalysisParticle Size DeterminationIron carbohydrate ComplexesNanoparticle EvaluationPolydispersity ProfileStandard Operating ProcedureSOPMeasurement ProcessIron Sucrose SolutionVolumetric FlaskCuvette PreparationNanomaterials Analysis

This article has been published

Video Coming Soon

JoVE Logo

Privacy

Terms of Use

Policies

Research

Education

ABOUT JoVE

Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved