See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331806143

Co-Processed Excipients: New Era in Pharmaceuticals

Article · January 2019

DOI: 10.5958/2231-5659.2019.00001.8

CITATION READS
1 580

5 authors, including:

Ashok Thulluru
Shri Vishnu College of Pharmacy
26 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Metoprolol Succinate Floating drug delivery tablets View project

Floating Tablets View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashok Thulluru on 11 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Asian Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences. 9(1): January- March, 2019

ISSN 2231–5640 (Print) Available online at

2231–5659 (Online) www.anvpublication.org
DOI: 10.5958/2231-5659.2019.00001.8

Vol. 09 |Issue-01| Asian Journal of

January- March 2019 Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences
Home page www. ajpsonline.com

REVIEW ARTICLE:

Co-Processed Excipients: New Era in Pharmaceuticals

Ashok Thulluru*, C. Madhavi, K. Nandini, S. Sirisha, D. Spandana
Sree Vidyanikethan College of Pharmacy, A. Rangampet, Tirupati-517102, Chittoor (Dist.), A.P., India.
*Corresponding Author E-mail: ashokthulluru@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:
Co-processing is the way that new excipients coming to the market without undergoing rigorous safety testing of
completely as new chemical. It can be defined as combining two or more established excipients by an
appropriate process. Co-processing of excipients could lead to formation of excipients with superior properties
compared to simple physical mixtures of their components. The main aim of co processing is to obtain product
with an added value related to the ratio of its functionality and / or price.

KEYWORDS: Co-processed excipients, formation, physical mixtures, established excipients.

INTRODUCTION: Segregation is diminished by adhesion of the actives on

Development of co-processed excipients starts with the
selection of the excipients to be combined, their targeted
proportion, selection of preparation method to get
optimized product with desired physio-chemical
parameters and it ends with minimizing avoidance with
batch-to-batch variations. An excipient of reasonable
price must be combined with the optimal amount of a
functional material in order to obtain integrated product,
with superior functionality than the simple mixture of
components. Co-processing is interesting because the
products are physically modified in a special way
without altering the chemical structure. A fixed and
homogenous distribution for the components is achieved
by embedding them into mini granules.
Received on 19.01.2019 Modified on 28.01.2019
Accepted on 15.02.2019 © A&V Publications All right reserved
Asian J. Res. Pharm. Sci. 2019; 9(1):01-05.
DOI: 10.5958/2231-5659.2019.00001.8
1
the porous particles making process validation and in
process control easy and reliable. The excipients industry
to date has been an extension of the food industry1.
Moreover, excipients are products of the food industry,
which has helped to maintain a good safety profile.
Increasing regulatory pressure on purity, safety, and
standardization of the excipients has catalyzed the
formation of an international body, the International
Pharmaceutical Excipients Council (IPEC)2. IPEC is a
tripartite council with representation from the United
States, Europe, and Japan and has made efforts to
harmonize requirements for purity and functionality
testing3. The development of new excipients to date has
been market driven (i.e., excipients are developed in
response to market demand) rather than marketing
driven (i.e., excipients are developed first and market
demand is created through marketing strategies) and has
not seen much activity as shown by the fact that, for the
past many years, not a single new chemical excipient has
been introduced into the market. The primary reason for
this lack of new chemical excipients is the relatively
high cost involved in excipients discovery and
development. However, with the increasing number of
new drug moieties with varying physicochemical and
 Asian Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences. 9(1): January- March, 2019

stability properties, there is growing pressure on excipients10.

formulators to search for new excipients to achieve the
desired set of functionalities. Other factors driving the
search for new excipients are:
• The growing popularity of the direct‐compression
process and a demand for an ideal filler–binder that
can substitute two or more excipients3-5.
• Tableting machinery’s increasing speed capabilities,
which require excipients to maintain good
compressibility and low weight variation even at
short dwell times.
• Shortcomings of existing excipients such as loss of
compaction of microcrystalline cellulose (MCC)
upon wet granulation, high moisture sensitivity, and
poor die filling as a result of agglomeration6.
• The lack of excipients that address the needs of a
specific patient such as those with diabetes,
hypertension, and lactose and sorbitol sensitivity.
• The ability to modulate the solubility, permeability,
or stability of drug molecules.
• The growing performance expectations of excipients
to address issues such as disintegration, dissolution,
and bioavailability7, 8.

Co-processing of Excipients:
The actual process of developing a co-processed
excipient involves the following steps9:
1 Identifying the excipients group to be co-processed Fig.1. Diagrammatic representation of co-processing of excipients
by carefully studying the material characteristics and
functionality requirements.
2 Electing the proportions of various excipients.
3 Assessing the particle size required for co processing.
This is especially important when one of the Properties and advantages of the co-processed
components is processed in a dispersed phase. Post excipients:
processing the particle size of the latter depends on Several authors have reported the advantages and
its initial particle size. possible limitations of the properties of co-processed
4 Selecting a suitable drying process such as spray- or excipients such as solidified microcrystalline
flash- drying optimizing the process (because even cellulose (SMCC), Cellactose, and Ludipress.
this can contribute to functionality variations). Fig.1.
shows a schematic representation of the co-
processing method10 and Table 1. Shows summary of
various methods to prepare co-processed

Table1. Summary of various methods to prepare co-processed excipients

Method Advantage and limitation Example
Chemical modification Expensive, time consuming, require toxicological data Ethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl
methyl cellulose, lactitol, cyclodextrin from starch
Physical modification Simple and economical Sorbitol, dextrates and compressible sugars
Grinding or sieving Compressibility may alter because of change in particle Dibasic dicalcium phosphate, αlactose monohydrate
properties
Crystallization Impart flow ability to excipient but not self-binding Dipac, β-lactose
properties, require stringent control on processing
Spray drying Spherical shape and uniform size give spray dried Emdex, Avicel PH, advantose100, karion instants
material good flowability, poor rework ability
Granulation/ Transfer poor flow, cohesive, small particle into flowable Granulated lactitol, tablettose
agglomeration and directly compressible
Dehydration Increase binding properties by thermal and chemical Anhydrous α-lactose
modification

2
 Asian Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences. 9(1): January- March, 2019
a. Absence of chemical change:
Many detailed studies of excipients chemical properties
after co-processing have proven that these excipients do
not show any chemical change. Detailed studies of
SMCC with X-ray diffraction analysis, solid-state
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), IR spectroscopy,
Raman spectroscopy, and C13 NMR spectroscopy have
detected no chemical MCC11 changes and indicate a
similarity to the physicochemical properties. This
absence of chemical change helps reduce a company’s
regulatory concerns during the development phase12.
b. Physico mechanical properties:
b.1. Improved Flow Properties:
Controlled optimal particle size and particle‐size
distribution ensures superior flow properties of co-
processed excipients without the need to add glidants.
The volumetric flow properties of SMCC were studied in
comparison with MCC. The particle‐size range of these
excipients was found to be similar to those of the parent
excipients, but the flow of co-processed excipients was
better than the flow of simple physical mixtures. A
comparison of the flow properties of Cellactose was also
performed. The angle of repose and the Hausner’s ratio
were measured, and Cellactose was found to have better
flow characteristics than lactose or a mixture of cellulose
and lactose13. The spray‐dried product had a spherical
shape and even surfaces, which also improved the flow
properties14.
b.2. Improved compressibility:
Co-processed excipients have been used mainly in direct
compression tabletting because in this process there is a
net increase in the flow properties and compressibility
profiles and the excipient formed is a filler–binder15. The
pressure– hardness relation of co-processed excipients,
when plotted and compared with simple physical
mixtures, showed a marked improvement in the
compressibility profile. The compressibility performance
of excipients such Cellactose16, SMCC17, 18 and
Ludipress19 are superior to the simple physical mixtures
of their constituent excipients. Although direct
compression seems to be the method of choice for
pharmaceutical manufacturing, wet granulation is still
preferred because it has the potential advantages of
increasing flow properties and compressibility when an
extra granular binder introduced, and it achieves a better
content uniformity in case of low‐dose drugs. Excipients
such as MCC lose compressibility upon the addition of
water, a phenomenon called quasihornification20. This
property is improved, however, when it is co-processed
into SMCC.
b.3. Better dilution potential:
Dilution potential is the ability of the excipient to retain
its compressibility even when diluted with another
material. Most active drug substances are poorly
compressible, and as a result, excipients must have better
compressibility properties to retain good compaction
even when diluted with a poorly compressible agent.
Cellactose is shown to have a higher dilution potential
than a physical mixture of its constituent excipients21.
b.4. Fill weight variation:
In general, materials for direct compression tend to show
high fill weight variations as a result of poor flow
properties, but co-processed excipients, when compared
with simple mixtures or parent materials, have been
shown to have fewer fill‐weight variation problems. The
primary reason for this phenomenon is the impregnation
of one particle into the matrix of another, which reduces
the rough particle surfaces and creates a near‐optimal
size distribution, causing better flow properties.
Fill‐weight variation tends to be more prominent with
high‐speed compression machines. Fill‐weight variation
was studied with various machine speeds for SMCC and
MCC, and SMCC showed less fill‐weight variation than
MCC.
b.5. Reduced lubricant sensitivity:
Most co-processed products consists of a relatively large
amount of brittle material such as lactose monohydrate
and a smaller amount of plastic material such as
cellulose that is fixed between or on the particles of the
brittle material22. The plastic material provides good
bonding properties because it creates a continuous
matrix with a large surface for bonding. The large
amount of brittle material provides low lubricant
sensitivity because it prevents the formation of a
coherent lubricant network by forming newly exposed
surfaces upon compression, thus breaking up the
lubricant network.
b.6. Other properties:
Co-processed excipients offer the following additional
advantages23:
• Pharmaceutical manufacturers have the option of
using a single excipient with multiple functional
properties, thereby reducing the number of excipients
in inventory.
• Improved organoleptic properties: Such as; Avicel
CE‐15 (FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA), which is a co-
processed excipient of MCC, and guar gum were
shown to have distinctive advantages in chewable
tablets in terms of reduced grittiness, tooth packing
and chalkiness. Over all improved mouth feel and
palatability.
• The overall product cost decreases because of
improved functionality and fewer test requirements
compared with individual excipients.
• Because they can retain functional advantages while
selectively reducing disadvantages, co-processed
excipients can be used to develop tailor‐made
3
 Asian Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences. 9(1): January- March, 2019

designer excipients. perspective of the excipient mixtures with the absence of

• This can be helpful in reducing the time required to a chemical change during processing, co-processed
develop formulations. excipients can be considered generally regarded as safe
• Co-processed excipients can be used as proprietary (GRAS) if the parent excipients are also GRAS-certified
combinations, and in‐house formularies maintained by the regulatory industry until it exhibits significant
by pharmaceutical companies, which could help in advantages in the tablet compaction when compared to
developing a formulation that is difficult to reproduce the physical agencies. Hence, these excipients do not
and provides benefits in terms of intellectual property require additional toxicological studies. Excipient
rights. mixtures or co-processed excipients have yet to find their
way into official monographs, which is one of the major
Commercial status of co-processed excipients: obstacles to their success in the market place.
Many co-processed excipients have been launched in the
market in the past few years, and a few formulations are A regulatory perspective of the co-processed
commercially available. excipients:
With the absence of a chemical change during
Table 2. Lists some of the marketed co-processed processing, co-processed excipients can be considered
excipients along with their manufacturers and benefits10. generally regarded as safe (GRAS) if the parent
excipients are also GRAS-certified by the regulatory
Limitations of co-processed excipients: industry until it exhibits significant advantages in the
Major limitation of co-processed excipient mixture is tablet compaction when compared to the physical
that the ratio of the excipients Major limitation of co- agencies. Hence, these excipients do not require
processed excipients are the ratio of the excipients in a additional toxicological studies. Excipient mixtures or
mixture is fixed and in developing a new formulation, a co-processed excipients have yet to find their way into
fixed ratio of the excipients may not be an optimum official monographs, which is one of the major obstacles
choice for the API and the dose per tablet under to their success in the market place. The mixture of
development. Co-processed adjuvant lacks the official excipients was presented as a topic to the National
acceptance in pharmacopoeia. For this reason, a Formulary and was assigned a priority on the basis of the
combination filler binder will not be accepted by the use of the mixture in marketed dosage forms in which
pharmaceutical mixtures of the excipients. Although the processing has provided added functional value to the
spray crystallized dextrose-maltose (Emdex) and excipient mixture.
compressible sugar are co-processed products as single
components and are official in USP/NF.A regulatory

Table2. Marketed co-processed excipients

Brand name Adjuvant Application Advantages Company, country
Cellactose MCC, High-dosage tablet, herbal formulations Highly compressible, Meggle,
Lactose good mouth feel, low cost Germany
Pearlite SD Granulated Mannitol for chewable and effervescent tablet, _ Roquette,
Diluents for capsules and sachets may France
require higher level of lubricant
(magnesium stearates)
Ludipress Lactose, For use in chewable tablets andlozenges, good flowability, low BASF,
PVP, Crosspovidone foreffervescent tablets and as bulking hygroscopicity, hardness Germany
agent for modified Release independent of machine
formulations. speed
Starlac Lactose, _ Good flow Roquette,
maize Starch France
Pharmatose Anhydrous lactose, _ High compressibility, low DMV,
DCL 40 lactitol lubricant sensitivity Netherlands
Prosolv MCC, colloidal Silica _ better flow, hardness, Penwest,
reduced friability USA

4
 Asian Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences. 9(1): January- March, 2019

REFERENCES: Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 2000; 26 (4): 465– 469.

1. Steinberg M, Blecher L. and Mercill A. From Inactive Ingredients 22. Maarschalk KVDV and Bolhius GK. Improving Properties of
to Pharmaceutical Excipients. Pharm. Technol. 2001; 25 (7): 62– Material for Direct Compaction. Pharm. Technol. 1999; 23 (5):
64. 34–46.
2. IPEC‐Americas: Why IPEC‐Americas is needed. [Web link: 23. K. Venkata Ramana Reddy, K. Divakar, B. Venkateswara Reddy,
http://www.ipecamericas.org.] P. Shruti. Pharmaceutical Excipients- Their Mechanisms.
3. Anuja Patil, VJ Kadam, KR Jadhav. Co-processed Research J. Pharma. Dosage Forms and Tech. 2013; 5(6): 355-
Pharmaceutical Excipients – A Brief Review. Research J. Pharm. 360.
and Tech. 2010; 3(1): 50-57.
4. B. Soujanya, G. Pavani Priya, T.E.G.K. Murthy.Co-Processing of
Excipients: A Review on Excipient Development for Improved
tabletting Performance. Res. J. Pharm. Dosage Form. and Tech.
2015; 7(2): 149-155.
5. P. Lakshmi, K. Pramod, K.C. Ajithkumar. Co-Processed
Excipients for Tabletting. Res. J. Pharm. Dosage Form. and Tech.
2016; 8(1): 46-54.
6. Blecher L. Pharmaceutical Excipients: Producers and Users
Strengthen their Voice. Pharm Technol. 1993; 17 (2): 38–39.
7. Amit Alexander, Ajazuddin, D K Tripathi, Tekeshwar Verma,
Sandip Patel, Harsh Deshmukh, Swarna. Role of Excipients to
Enhance the Disintegration Property of Different Formulations:
An Overview. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2011; 4(10): 1519-
1525.
8. Sandesh Narayan Somnache, Ajeet Madhukar Godbole, Pankaj
Sadashiv Gajare, Sapna Kashyap. Significance of Pharmaceutical
Excipients on Solid Dosage form Development: A Brief Review.
Asian J. Pharm. Res. 2016; 6(3): 193-202.
9. Amol Main, B. A. Bhairav, R. B. Saudager. Co-processed
Excipients for Tabletting: Review Article. Research J. Pharm.
and Tech. 2017; 10(7): 2427-2432.
10. Sreekanth Babu S, Ajay Kumar A, Suman D R. Co-Processed
Excipients: A Review. International Journal of Current Trends in
Pharmaceutical Research. 2013; 1(3): 205-214.
11. M.J. Tobyn et al. Physicochemical Comparison between
Microcrystalline Cellulose and Silicified Microcrystalline
Cellulose. Int. J. Pharm. 1998; 169: 183–194.
12. Rajendra Jangde, Rahul Singhour, SJ Daharwal. Compatibility
Studies Between Gatifloxacin and Pharmaceutical Excipients
through Differential Scanning Calorimetry and Infra Red
Spectroscopy. Research J. Pharma. Dosage Forms and Tech.
2010; 2(1):103-106.
13. York P. Crystal Engineering and Particle Design for the Powder
Compaction Process. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 1992; 18 (6, 7):
677–721.
14. T. Sonica, T. E. G. K. Murthy. Studies on the Influence of
Different Co processing Excipients on the Flow and Dissolution
kinetics of Donepezil HCl. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2013;
6(8): 868-873.
15. R.K.V. Naga Sudha, G. Padmini, T.E.G.K. Murthy. Development
of Novel Co-Processed Excipients for the Design and Evaluation
of Directly Compressible Tablets of Rizatriptan Benzoate. Res. J.
Pharm. Dosage Form. and Tech. 2015; 7(1): 07-10.
16. Belda PM, Mielck JB. The Tableting Behavior of Cellactose
Compared with Mixtures of Celluloses with Lactoses. Eur.
J.Pharm. Biopharm. 1996; 42 (5): 325–330.
17. Sherwood BE, Becker JW. A New Class of High Functionality
Excipients: Solidified Microcrystalline Cellulose. Pharm.
Technol. 1988; 22(10): 78–88.
18. Allen JD. Improving DC with SMCC. Manufacturing Chemist.
1996; 67 (12): 19-23.
19. Schmidt PC and Rubensdorfer CJW. Evaluation of Ludipress as a
Multipurpose Excipient for Direct Compression Part I: Powder
Characteristics and Tableting Properties. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm.
1994; 20 (18): 2899–2925.
20. Staniforth JN and Chatrath M. Towards a New Class of High
Functionality Tablet Binders: Quasi‐Hornification of
Microcrystalline Cellulose and Loss of Functionality. Pharm.
Res. 1996; 13 (9): 208.
21. Flores LE, Arellano RL, and Esquivel JD. Study of Load
Capacity of Avicel PH‐200 and Cellactose, Two
Direct‐Compression Excipients, Using Experimental Design.
5

View publication stats