Accepted Manuscript

Gelatin and Non-Gelatin Capsule Dosage Forms

Rampurna P. Gullapalli, Carolyn L. Mazzitelli

PII: S0022-3549(17)30078-3
DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2017.02.006
Reference: XPHS 648

To appear in: Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Received Date: 29 November 2016

Revised Date: 2 February 2017
Accepted Date: 6 February 2017

Please cite this article as: Gullapalli RP, Mazzitelli CL, Gelatin and Non-Gelatin Capsule Dosage Forms,
Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.xphs.2017.02.006.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

GELATIN AND NON-GELATIN CAPSULE DOSAGE FORMS

Rampurna P. Gullapalli1,2, Carolyn L. Mazzitelli1

1
Dart NeuroScience LLC, 12278 Scripps Summit Drive, San Diego, CA 92131 USA

PT
2
Corresponding author: RampurnaL@gmail.com; Phone 914-316-4935

ABSTRACT

RI
Capsules offer an alternate to tablets for oral delivery of therapeutic compounds. One

SC
advantage of capsules over tablets is their amenability to deliver not only solids but also
non-aqueous liquids and semisolids as a unit dose solid dosage form. Shell component is
an essential part of capsule dosage forms. Capsule shells, available as hard or soft shells,

U
are formulated from gelatin or a non-gelatin polymeric material such as hypromellose and
AN
starch, water, and with or without a non-volatile plasticizer. The capsule shells may also
be formulated to modify the release of their fill contents in a site-specific manner in the
M

gastrointestinal tract. The goal of the current review is to provide an in-depth discussion
on polymeric film forming materials and manufacturing technologies used in the
D

production of capsule shells.

TE

Keywords

Capsules; Gelatin; Hypromellose; Cross-linking; Modified release, Enteric; Stability

C EP
AC

Page 1 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. INTRODUCTION

Capsule dosage forms are widely used to encapsulate powders, granules, pellets, liquids,
and semisolids (Figure 1). Capsules can be soft shell capsules (softgels), which are

PT
typically used to encapsulate non-aqueous liquid and semisolid formulations1 or hard
shell capsules, which are used to encapsulate both solid and non-aqueous formulations.2,3

RI
The soft capsule shells are commonly manufactured from gelatin or a non-gelatin
polymeric material, water, non-volatile plasticizer(s), and other minor additives such as

SC
opacifiers and colorants. Hard capsule shells, unlike those of soft capsules, do not contain
a non-volatile plasticizer. The shells of soft and hard capsules can also be formulated

U
either to delay the release of their fill contents until the capsules pass through the stomach
region of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) (enteric release) or to target the release at a
AN
specific region of the GIT (site-specific release). Alternately, the capsule shells can also
be used to contain fill materials to provide immediate release or modified release
M

characteristics.

Gelatin has been used predominantly as the film former for both hard shell and soft shell
D

capsules. In recent years, several non-gelatin polymers have been advanced either to
TE

replace gelatin partially or all together in the manufacture of capsule shells or to modify
the properties of capsule shells. In this paper, we review chemistry and properties of
EP

gelatin briefly as pertinent to capsule shells, application of non-gelatin materials as

gelatin substitute in capsule shells, and approaches to modify the properties of capsule
shells to control the release of their encapsulated fill contents.
C
AC

2. GELATIN CAPSULE DOSAGE FORMS

2.1. Composition of Gelatin Capsule Shells

2.1.1. Gelatin

Gelatin is a purified protein obtained from collagen of animals (including fish and
poultry) by partial alkaline and/or acid hydrolysis, by enzymatic hydrolysis, or by thermal
hydrolysis (USP-NF). Gelatin is a mixture of water-soluble proteins and water (8-15%).

Page 2 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The protein fraction contains almost entirely of amino acids in L-configuration with
traces in D-configuration linked by amide (peptide) bonds forming a linear polymer with
a molecular weight ranging from 15,000 to 250,000 Daltons.4,5 The gelatin polymer
chains are composed of repeating units of about twenty different amino acids with the
dicarboxylic amino acids (i.e., aspartic acid and glutamic acid) providing free carboxyl

PT
groups, di-amine amino acids (i.e., lysine and arginine) providing free amino groups, and
hydroxyl amino acid (i.e., hydroxyproline) providing free hydroxyl groups. These

RI
functional groups actively participate in several chemical reactions6, some of which will
be discussed in later sections. The frequency of occurrence of the most abundant amino

SC
acids are glycine (~33%), alanine (~11%), and imino acids (i.e., proline and
hydroxyproline; ~22%).7 Gelatin contains all the amino acids commonly found in

U
proteins with the probable exception of tryptophan and cysteine.
AN
Gelatin is amphoteric in nature with its isoelectric point (i.e., pH at which the gelatin
molecule is electrically neutral) ranging from 7.0 to 9.0 for type A gelatin (i.e., acidic
treatment) and from 4.7 to 5.3 for type B gelatin (i.e., alkaline treatment), respectively.5
M

Type A gelatin is considered to be less degraded form of collagen relative to type B

gelatin. The acid pretreatment of collagen is thought to accomplish only a physical
D

reorganization of the collagen structure with minimal hydrolytic changes. By contrast, the
TE

alkali pretreatment of collagen is thought to bring about chemical alterations in the

collagen structure, resulting in the rupture of the relatively weak physical forces that
maintain its fibrillar structure. During alkali pretreatment, arginine moieties of the
EP

collagen can undergo deguanidination to form ornithine and urea and potentially trace
amounts of citrulline and ammonia (Figure 2).8-11 The extent of ammonia evolved
C

increases rapidly upon increasing concentrations of alkali, but remains low and
AC

practically negligible at pH values less than 5.4 (Figure 3).12 The presence of even
smaller quantities of ammonia in the gelatin capsule shell may induce degradation of
some encapsulated compounds.13 Collagens from marine sources are more susceptible to
degradation during chemical treatment due to the lower content of cross-links14, in
contrast to the more stable collagens from mammals (e.g., collagen from cattle bones,
hides, and pigskins).

Page 3 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Gelatin undergoes hydrolytic degradation in aqueous media, the rate and extent of which
depend up on the pH, temperature, and time the reaction is allowed to proceed.15-18 The
degradation of gelatin was shown to be minimum between pH values 4 and 7, with the
rate accelerating on either side of this pH region. The hydrolytic degradation of gelatin
results in the reduction of the viscosity and gel-forming ability (gel strength) of a gelatin

PT
solution.

RI
2.1.1.1 Chemical Structure of Gelatin

Collagen, the parent protein of gelatin, consists of three polypeptide chains, each one

SC
twisted in a left-handed helix and super coiled together to form a right-handed triple
helix.19,20 In collagen, the single chains (α-chains) cross-link forming the β-chains (two

U
covalently cross-linked single chains) and γ-chains (three covalently cross-linked single
chains). The triple helix of collagen is stabilized by firmly bound water molecules.
AN
During the denaturation process of collagen, the triple helix structure is broken down to
form a random-coil gelatin. In aqueous solutions, the gelatin chains coil around each
M

other to form a collagen-like triple helix, when the solution is cooled below its coil to
helix (sol to gel) transition temperature, thereby recreating the three dimensional
D

network.20-22 As the complete reversibility of gelatin transition into collagen requires the
TE

proper juxtaposition and recoiling of the three peptide chains and as the chances for such
a scenario are less than possible, it is assumed that gelatin could never be returned to the
complete native collagen structure, but could only to be returned to a partial recovery of
EP

the helix structure originally present in the native collagen.23

High rigidity and elongation at fracture in a gelatin gel is generally attributed to the
C

helical structure of the macromolecules. This aspect of gelatin is of critical importance to

AC

the formation gelatin films and integrity of capsules. When the gel mass is kept at 57-
60°C, the gelatin in the gel mass exists as single protein molecules in a random coil
configuration, sheathed by water molecules. As the temperature of the gel decreases
below 40°C, the gelatin molecules begin to re-form into the structural characteristics that
are typical to the parent collagen fibers. This conformational state assumed by gelatin is
determined by the molecular weight, type, and concentration of gelatin in the solution,

Page 4 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

process conditions, such as temperature, rate of drying, as well as by the nature of the
solvent and the content of various salts, denaturating and structuralizing substances.21-28

The various factors affecting the formation of helical structures in gelatin solutions can
be summarized as below:

PT
1. Related to gelatin:

RI
a. Gelatin requires at a minimum chain length of 40-80 amino acid residues to form
helical structures with their content and stability increasing with increasing polymer

SC
chain length. Lower temperatures promote the formation of larger helix contents with
longer cooling times providing additional amounts of helices.21,22,26,29

U
b. Type A gelatin, a less modified form of collagen than type B gelatin, usually
generates more helical structures than type B gelatin.21,22,24
AN
c. Imino acid (proline and hydroxyproline) content contributes to the mechanism of
M

formation and stabilization of the helices in gelatin.21,30,31 Thus, gelatins containing a

larger imino acid content (e.g., gelatins derived from collagen of cattle bones, hides,
D

and pigskins) usually form stronger gels with superior rheological and thermally
stable properties than those containing lesser imino acid content, such as fish
TE

gelatins.32 Calfskin gelatin, for example, contains approximately 138 proline and 94
hydroxyproline residues per 1000 total amino acid residues compared to 102 proline
EP

and 53 hydroxyproline residues in cod (cold water fish) skin gelatin.33 Gelatins from
warm water fish species (e.g., tilapia) contain approximately 119 and 70 residues of
proline and hydroxyproline, respectively, per 1000 total residues, and have physical
C

properties closer to those of mammalian gelatins.34 The inferior physical properties

AC

and large variations in the quality of different fish gelatins make these gelatins
unsuited as mammalian gelatin replacements.

2. Related to composition of medium:

a. Gelatin generates the highest helical structures when the pH of the medium is at the
isoelectric point of the gelatin and the rate of formation of helical structures slows

Page 5 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

down considerably when the pH of the medium moves away from the isoelectric
point.21,22,24,26 The influence of the pH of the medium on the formation of helical
structures is diminished as the temperature is lowered.

b. Nonionic polyhydroxyl solvents and solutes, such as glycerol, sorbitol, glucose, and

PT
sucrose, enhance the formation of helices and the effect increases with increase in
their concentration and hydroxyl content (e.g., sorbitol > glycerol, sucrose >

RI
glucose).35,36

c. Citrate solutions may induce reorientation of gelatin molecules into helical structures

SC
as suggested by an increase in the viscosity, with a maximum observable effect at pH
near 7.0.37

U
d. Alcohols inhibit generation of the helical structures with the longer carbon chain
AN
length alcohol imparting greater inhibition of the helices formation (e.g., n-propyl
alcohol > ethanol > methanol).24,36
M

e. Salts, such as sodium chloride and calcium chloride, reduce the rate of generation
helical structures in gelatin.24
D

f. Denaturating agents, such as urea, N-methyl acetamide, thiocyanates, and ionic

TE

surfactants promote the transition of helical structures into coil structures.25-28,38

2.1.1.2 Chemical Modification of Gelatin

EP

The polar groups present in the side chains of gelatin are reactive and prone to chemical
C

modifications. The chemical modification of the side chains can potentially influence the
viscosity and gel forming properties of gelatin. The carboxylic acid groups produce
AC

negative charges on dissociation and can be converted into non-ionizable esters by

reaction with an alcohol in presence of an acid catalyst. The acid catalyst suppresses the
ionization of the carboxylic acid groups, thereby promoting esterification of those
groups.39 The ester content of gelatin increases with an increase in the concentration of
the acid catalyst and the time of reaction. The viscosity of a gelatin solution and rigidity

Page 6 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of the gel resulting from such a solution decrease with an increase in the ester content of
gelatin.6 The esters of gelatin are liable to hydrolysis in presence of an alkali.

The chemical modification of the free amino groups in gelatin (i.e., lysine) can be
achieved by selective treatment of gelatin with an acid anhydride under alkaline

PT
conditions.6,40,41 Under alkaline conditions, such as an aqueous sodium acetate solution,
the free amino groups are prevented from ionizing, which promotes selective acetylation

RI
of only the amino groups.42 Treatment of gelatin with a monocarboxylic acid anhydride,
such as acetic anhydride, under alkaline conditions results in the formation of acetylated
gelatin (a neutral amide) with a reduced isoelectric point.6 The chemical masking of the

SC
side chain free amino groups with a dicarboxylic acid anhydride, such as succinic
anhydride, under alkaline conditions results in the formation of succinylated gelatin (an

U
acidic amide due to the presence the second free carboxylic group), which reduces the
AN
isoelectric point of gelatin further, compared to the acetylated gelatin.40 The viscosity of
an acetylated gelatin solution and rigidity of the gel resulting from such a solution are not
influenced by the N-acetyl content of gelatin and are similar to those of the un-acetylated
M

starting material.6 Succinated gelatin is relatively more permeable to volatile solvents

(e.g., ethyl alcohol) and migratable ingredients than gelatin.
D

In contrast, the acetylation of the hydroxyl groups in gelatin can be achieved selectively
TE

by treatment either in acetic acid, acetic anhydride, and perchloric acid medium or in
acetic anhydride and trifluoroacetic acid medium.41 Under acidic conditions, the amino
EP

groups exist in ionized form, which prevents acetylation of those groups and promotes
selective acetylation of the hydroxyl groups in gelatin. Unlike as in case of amidation of
C

the amino groups with an acid anhydride, esterification of the hydroxyl groups is known
to have less significant influence on the isoelectric point of gelatin.
AC

The guanidino groups of the arginine residues in gelatin are responsible for the existence
of positive charges on the molecule at all measurable pH values, since these groups are
assumed to have a pKa value in the region of 14.6 The only reactions specific to the
guanidino groups occur in a strong alkali, which might result in deguanidination (Figure
2).

Page 7 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.1.1.3 Cross-linking of Gelatin

Gelatin undergoes cross-linking (also known as pellicle formation) upon aging and when
exposed to (a) physical stress conditions, such as heat43, high temperature and humidity44,
UV radiation45, γ-radiation46-48, and rapid drying49, (b) chemical substances, such as

PT
aldehydes, ketones, imines, and carbodiimides50-57, or (c) enzymatic substances, such as
transglutaminase54. Aldehydes are thought to form methylene bonds between two amino

RI
groups on adjacent gelatin chains or within the same chain. The aldehyde induced cross-
linking of gelatin is thought to involve the ε–amino functional groups present in the

SC
lysine moieties and the guanidino functional groups present in the arginine moieties of
the gelatin chain.53,55,56,58 On the other hand, elevated temperatures are thought to deplete
water molecules between the side-chain carboxylic acid groups on a gelatin chain and

U
hydroxyl or amino groups on an adjacent gelatin chain (or within the same chain) and
AN
promote formation of esters or amides, respectively.43

Whether it is thermally induced, chemically induced, or enzymatically induced, cross-

M

linking of gelatin results in the formation of three-dimensional molecular networks of a

higher molecular weight with the loss of ionizable groups (i.e., R-NH2 and R-COOH)
D

than the original molecules, leading to the reduced solubility of gelatin. The loss of
TE

ionizable groups in gelatin and the resulting decrease in its solubility may also arise from
the ionic, hydrogen, and van der Waals interactions of these groups with other
compounds used concurrently in the capsule shell formulations, e.g., FD&C Red # 3 and
EP

FD&C Red # 40 colorants.59,60

The cross-linking of gelatin can be reduced by masking the amino groups available along
C

the molecular chain of gelatin through covalent bonds with a suitable masking agent,
AC

such as succinic acid.61-63 The dicarboxylic acid nature enables succinic acid to both the
reaction of one carboxylic group with an accessible amino group in the molecular chain
of the gelatin while the second carboxylic group concurrently providing steric prevention
of access of the cross-linking agent. Acetylation of the amino groups on gelatin is another
example that was shown to minimize cross-linking of gelatin in presence of aldehydes.52

Page 8 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Other solutions to minimize the cross-linking of gelatin include: (a) use of excipients
with no or low aldehyde content, (b) minimize the formation of aldehydes in the
excipients by using appropriate antioxidants, and (c) use of excipients containing
abundant free amino groups (e.g., glycine) in the gel formulation that can compete with
the amino groups present in the gelatin chain for the available aldehyde impurities.

PT
Incorporation of a low molecular weight gelatin hydrolysate containing smaller peptides
of molecular weight of 100 to 1500 Daltons, free glycine, and other amino acids into the

RI
gel mass was also reported to reduce the tendency of gelatin cross-linking.64,65

SC
2.1.1.4 Microbial Growth in Gelatin

Microbial growth in gelatin may not be possible due to the lack of the essential amino

U
acid, tryptophan, in gelatin and the very hypertonic nature (low water activity) of gelatin,
especially in the dried state. Any degree of microbial growth that could occur in gelatin
AN
might probably be due to the presence of excessive moisture. Microorganisms classified
as fungi (e.g., Aspergillus niger) have the best opportunity of growth in gelatin when
M

excessive moisture is present. In contrast, bacteria, yeast, and fungi are not expected to
grow in dried gelatin. In the wet gel masses inoculated with different types of
D

microorganisms, with the exception of fungi, no other types of microorganisms were

reported to survive for longer than 20 days in the gel mass.66 A 5 log unit reduction in the
TE

number of surviving bacteria was observed in 7 days for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 10

days for Escherichia coli, and 18 days for Staphylococcus aureus, respectively, and in 15
EP

days for Candida albicans (yeast). In contrast, no observable reduction in the number of
surviving Aspergillus niger was observed within the study period of 40 days under
C

similar conditions. The addition of methyl and propyl parabens, as the preservatives,
produce acceleration in the inactivation of all study microorganisms in the wet gel
AC

masses. The Candida albicans was shown to be more vulnerable to the parabens than
other bacteria tested. On the other extreme, it required more than 20 days for parabens to
produce a 5-log unit reduction in the number of surviving Aspergillus niger in wet gel
masses.

Page 9 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The reported minimum levels of water activity necessary for the growth of Escherichia
coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Aspergillus niger are 0.9367,
0.9468, 0.8669, and 0.8470, respectively. In wet gel masses, water activity levels were
much higher than those required for the survival of microorganisms. In the case of dried
gel masses, the water activity levels fall to much lower than those required for

PT
microorganisms to survive. Thus, gelatin products, when dried properly and handled with
considerable care, provide sufficient microbial inhibition.66

RI
2.1.2. Plasticizers

SC
Hard gelatin capsule shells do not contain a non-volatile plasticizer and the presence of
moisture (12 - 16%) is essential to maintain their flexibility and integrity.71,72 At a lower

U
moisture content, the shells become brittle and are prone to breakage, while at a higher
content, the shells may deform and become sticky. Thus, any alteration to this moisture
AN
range, due to its migration between the shell and encapsulated fill or between the shell
and external environment, could be detrimental to the integrity of the hard gelatin capsule
M

shells.

A non-volatile, hydrophilic plasticizer is included in the production of gelatin ribbons for

D

soft gelatin capsules. The plasticizer is hypothesized to reduce the protein-protein

TE

interactions with a consequent increase in the mobility of protein chains and a decrease in
the glass transition temperature (Tg) of gelatin.73 The reduction in the protein-protein
EP

interactions results in improved flexibility and handling of the shell material during its
manufacturing and shelf life. In addition, a plasticizer, due to its hygroscopic nature,
promotes absorption and retention of moisture by gelatin that also contributes to the
C

reduction of the forces between the adjacent polymer chains.73-76

AC

Typical hydrophilic plasticizers used in the soft gelatin capsule shells include glycerol,
sorbitol, partially dehydrated sorbitol (blend of sorbitol and 1,4-sorbitan), maltitol
(hydrogenated corn syrup), mannitol, propylene glycol, and low molecular weight
polyethylene glycols. Plasticizers are used typically at about 15-30% w/w of the total wet
mass of a shell formulation at the time of soft gelatin capsules encapsulation.77-80

Page 10 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Glycerol is the most effective plasticizer and the higher plasticizing efficacy of glycerol
is attributed to its lower molecular weight and higher hygroscopicity than other higher
polyols.73,76,81 The moisture content of gelatin films plasticized with glycerol tends to
increase with increased glycerol concentration in the films. Sorbitol is prone to
crystallization from gelatin films (blooming) stored at lower humidity conditions due to

PT
the insufficient availability of water to keep the plasticizer in solution.82,83 As the
crystallization of sorbitol decreases the effective amount of ‘plasticizing’ sorbitol, it is

RI
expected to increase the molecular interactions within the gelatin network and change the
mechanical properties of the films.82 Glycerol is blended with sorbitol to yield a better

SC
control of the overall moisture content in gelatin films. Alternately, use of partially
dehydrated sorbitol as a plasticizer in gelatin films tends to pick up less moisture than

U
glycerol and not to prone to crystallization as regular sorbitol.
AN
Lower molecular weight polyethylene glycols (e.g., PEG 200 and PEG 300) have a larger
number of hydroxyl groups per a mole and a higher hygroscopicity compared to those of
higher molecular weight polyethylene glycols and thus the former exhibit a more
M

pronounced plasticizing effect than that by the latter. A more efficient plasticizing effect
of a lower molecular weight polyethylene glycol is also due to its smaller molecular size
D

that facilitates its insertion into the polymer chains of gelatin more readily. Gelatin films
TE

plasticized with polyethylene glycols are known to exhibit a tendency for the plasticizer
to migrate to the surface of the films.84 This phenomenon is thought to take place when
the plasticizer concentration exceeds its compatibility limit in the polymer, thus causing
EP

phase separation and physical exclusion of the plasticizer from the polymer.85 This
phenomenon is referred to as blooming or blushing. The physical exclusion of the
C

plasticizer from the polymer also results in films becoming opaque with time, with the
AC

opacity increasing with increase in the molecular weight and corresponding increase in
the melting point of the polyethylene glycols.84

The permeability of oxygen and volatile fill components, such as ethyl alcohol through a
gelatin film increases exponentially with an increase in glycerol concentration and
corresponding increase in the humidity in the film (Figure 4).86-88 The oxygen
permeability and loss of volatile fill components due to diffusion can be minimized by

Page 11 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the use of a non-glycerol plasticizer or substituting a portion of glycerol with a higher

polyol plasticizer, maintaining low shell moisture content, and protecting the capsule
product against high humidity conditions.

In addition to aforementioned plasticizers of hydrophilic nature, the use of hydrophobic

PT
plasticizers such as oleic acid, triethyl citrate (TEC), acetyltriethyl citrate (ATEC),
tributyl citrate (TBC), and acetyltributyl citrate (ATBC) in gelatin films has also been

RI
investigated.84,89 Akin to hydrophilic plasticizers, the hydrophobic plasticizers provide
flexibility to gelatin films. However, the extent of this effect with hydrophobic

SC
plasticizers on gelatin films is far less than that produced with hydrophilic plasticizers.
The hydrophobic plasticizers are also less compatible with gelatin, resulting in phase
separation during the drying process. Though, the addition of an emulsifier such as

U
lecithin may minimize the phase separation to some extent, films produced with
AN
hydrophobic plasticizers are generally opaque and the opacity of the gelatin films
increases with increased concentration of a hydrophobic plasticizer in the films.
M

3. MANUFACTURING OF CAPSULE DOSAGE FORMS

The manufacturing process for the production of soft gelatin capsules is the rotary die
D

process90, in which a molten mass of a gelatin sheath formulation at 57-60°C is fed from
TE

a reservoir onto two separate rotating cooling drums to form two spaced flat ribbons of
gelatin in a semi-molten state. These flat ribbons are extracted from the cooling drums
and are fed around rollers that lubricate them, usually with fractionated coconut oil, and
EP

then brought together at a convergent angle into the nip of a pair of roller dies that
include opposing die cavities. A fill formulation, to be encapsulated, flowing from its
C

own reservoir through a tube under gravity, is fed into a positive displacement pump.
AC

Accurately metered volumes of the fill formulation are injected from a heated wedge (~
35°C - <40°C) into the space between gelatin ribbons as they pass between the cavities
on the die rolls. As the ribbons meet on the rim of the opposing die cavities, the bottom
lips of the cavities initially seal, forming what is referred to as ‘lower seam’. The fill
formulation is then injected precisely into the semi formed soft gelatin capsules. The soft
gelatin capsule halves are then sealed together (forming the ‘upper seam’) by the
application of heat (provided by the heated wedge) and pressure (provided by the dies).

Page 12 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The soft gelatin capsules, severed around each of the die cavities, are ejected by the
continuous rotation of the dies and are carried on a conveyer into a tumble dryer. After
the soft gelatin capsules exit the tumble dryer, they are spread on to shallow trays and
dried further in a drying tunnel maintained at 21-24°C and 20-30% RH.

PT
Empty hard capsule shells of various fill volumes are manufactured separately and
supplied ready for the encapsulation of fill formulations. The manufacturing process for

RI
the hard capsule shells is the dip molding process, in which a set of molding pins are
immersed in an aqueous solution of the film forming polymer (gelatin or hypromellose

SC
[HPMC]) with other additives, such as a gelling agent and a gelling promoter (in case of
HPMC capsules), an opacifier, and colorants, maintained 48-55°C. The molding pins
with the adhering solution are withdrawn and dried at 25-35°C to form capsule shells

U
(body or cap). The dried body and cap parts of the capsule shells are cut to a suitable size
AN
and paired to form empty hard capsule shells.

The bodies of hard capsule shells are filled, capped, and sealed sequentially. Unlike soft
M

capsules, which are one-piece, completely filled, and hermetically sealed, filled two-piece
hard capsules have substantial headspace within. The presence of the headspace within a
D

hard capsule may compromise the elegance of a product designed with a transparent shell
TE

formulation and the oxidative stability of an encapsulated compound. The loss of fillable
volume in a hard capsule due to the headspace may also result in a relatively larger
capsule size compared to that of a soft capsule containing a similar fill volume.
EP

An essential part of producing liquid filled hard capsules is the ability to seal the capsules
effectively after encapsulation. The two most widely used methods are banding using a
C

polymer solution (e.g., gelatin solution for banding hard gelatin capsules) and sealing
AC

using a hydroalcoholic solution.91 The banding of hard capsules is a process, in which

capsules are first rectified and then passed once or twice over the top of a rotating wheel
with its bottom submerged in a bath of the polymer solution maintained at an optimal
viscosity and temperature. A quantity of the polymer solution is picked up by the rotating
wheel from the bath and applied to the junction of the cap and body of the capsules. The
capsules are then carried through the drying process.

Page 13 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In the capsule sealing process, every capsule is individually sprayed with a micro amount
of a hydroalcoholic sealing fluid at the junction of the cap and body of the capsules
followed by drying by gently tumbling the capsules in a rotating drum. For an efficient
sealing process, it is important that the fill material does not penetrate into the zone
between the body and cap before the sealing operation.

PT
The challenges arising from the leakage of the hard capsules may be able to overcome by

RI
maintaining the fill formulation in liquid form during the filling step that solidifies
subsequently. This can be achieved using a thixotropic formulation that remains a liquid
under shear (shear thinning)92,93 or a semisolid formulation that remains a liquid when

SC
heated (hot melt or thermo-softening)93,94 during capsule filling process. In the case of hot
melt fills, the effect of melting temperature and time held at this temperature on the

U
potential for the formation of aldehyde impurities and thermal stability of compounds
AN
needs to be investigated. The rate of cooling can also have an influence on the structure
of certain excipients, which in turn may modify the drug release characteristics from the
matrix itself.95
M

The readers are directed to the literature published by Cole et al.2, Cade et al.3, and
D

Rowley96 to obtain any further understanding of the manufacturing process for the liquid
and semisolid filled hard capsules and their characteristics.
TE

4. FILL FORMULATIONS
EP

Until early 1980s, soft gelatin capsules were traditionally used to encapsulate non-
aqueous liquid and semisolid formulations, whereas, hard gelatin capsules were used to
C

encapsulate powders and pellets. Later on, hard capsules were evolved as an alternate to
soft gelatin capsules for encapsulating non-aqueous liquids and semisolids.2,3,93,97 The
AC

hard capsule shells for liquid and semisolid filling are identical in composition to those
used for filling powders and pellets.

Lipophilic vehicles, such as long-chain free fatty acids and their esters, are compatible
with both soft and hard capsules. Hydrophilic vehicles for soft gelatin capsules fill
formulations include polyethylene glycols of 400-600 molecular weight and smaller

Page 14 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

amounts of propylene glycol, glycerol, and water. The use of propylene glycol, glycerol,
water, and lower molecular weight polyethylene glycols (molecular weight ≤ 300) in the
fill formulations is limited due to their ability to diffuse into the shell and thereby act as
gelatin plasticizers.84,98 Hydrophilic fill formulations have an affinity for water and
glycerol used in the shell formulation as plasticizers, leading to the migration of these

PT
shell components into the fill. Migration of a plasticizer from the shell into the fill in a
soft gelatin capsule could result in the reduced elasticity and increased brittleness of the

RI
shell shortly after production or on storage, especially when exposed to cold
temperatures.78,99,100 Migration of water could lead to physical and chemical instability of

SC
soft gelatin capsule products containing solubilized compounds, which are prone to water
induced precipitation and hydrolytic degradation.101-105 Polyethylene glycol and lipid

U
excipients are inherently susceptible to autooxidation in the presence of air, moisture,
heat, and light and produce reactive peroxides, aldehydes (i.e., formaldehyde and
AN
acetaldehyde), and carboxylic acids (i.e., formic acid and acetic acid). These reactive
impurities are known to induce physical and chemical instability in capsule products.106-
M

113

Hard gelatin capsule shells are compatible with polyethylene glycols of molecular weight
D

higher than 4000.2,97 Polyethylene glycols of molecular weight ≤ 4000, due to their
TE

hydrophilicity, can extract water from the shell material, resulting in increased brittleness
of the shell shortly after production or on storage. Use of water, glycerol, sorbitol, and
propylene glycol in the fill formulations is known to be incompatible with the hard
EP

gelatin capsule shells at concentrations as low as 5%.3

C

It is essential to keep the apparent pH of the fill formulation between 2.5 and 7.5 to
maintain the structural integrity of gelatin capsule shell during its shelf life. At pH values
AC

outside this range, gelatin is hydrolyzed causing leakage of capsule fill contents and
sticking of the capsules.16,114 Gelatin shells containing encapsulated acid salts, mineral
acids, and organic acids may also be at the potential risk of hydrolysis of gelatin due to
the migration of these compounds into the shell.115,116

Page 15 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The use of ethyl alcohol, a commonly used co-solvent in self-emulsifying fill

formulations is limited due to its ability to rapidly diffuse through the capsule
shell.86,88,117 The loss of ethyl alcohol from a self-emulsifying fill formulation could have
a significant negative impact on the solubility of a dissolved compound and in vitro and
in vivo performance of the formulation.118-120

PT
5. NON-GELATIN CAPSULE DOSAGE FORMS

RI
5.1. Non-Gelatin Hard Shell Capsules

5.1.1. Hypromellose based Hard Shell Capsules

SC
Alternate to hard gelatin capsules, hard capsule shells are also manufactured using non-
gelatinous polymers, such as hypromellose (hydroxypropyl methylcellulose [HPMC])

U
and starch. The originally invented HPMC capsule shells contain a secondary gelling
AN
agent such as kappa-carrageenan (Quali-V® from Qualicaps) or gellan (Vcaps® from
Capsugel). HPMC alone does not gel at low temperatures. The use of a gelling agent is
M

essential to be able to manufacture HPMC capsule shells using the conventional dip
molding process employed in the manufacture of hard gelatin capsule shells.
Carrageenans are algal (seaweed) polysaccharides consisting of high-molecular-weight
D

linear sulfated galactan chains. Gellan gum is a microbial polysaccharide with a linear
TE

tetra-saccharide repeating sequence with one carboxyl group per repeat unit. In solution,
at the dipping stage of capsule shell manufacturing, both gelling agents exist as
disordered coils.121 On cooling, the chains associate by the formation of double helices.
EP

Gelation occurs by subsequent aggregation of these helices to form a continuous, three-

dimensional network. Gelation is further promoted by cations that suppress the
C

electrostatic repulsion between the helices and allow aggregation to occur. Divalent metal
AC

ions, such as calcium, are particularly effective in inducing gelation of gellan and
carrageenan.122,123 Monovalent cations, such as potassium, also produce strong gels at
moderate salt concentrations.123,124 Newer version of HPMC capsule shells without a
secondary gelling agent and a gelling promotor have also been manufactured and are
available under the trade name Vcaps® Plus (Capsugel).

Page 16 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The use of a gelling agent is known to delay the HPMC shell dissolution in vitro and in
vivo in some circumstances.121,125 The dissolution of the HPMC capsule shells containing
a gelling agent is dependent on both pH and composition of the dissolution medium and
is usually longer than that of hard gelatin capsules. The delay in the dissolution of these
HPMC capsule shells is attributed to the interactions between the gelling agent and

PT
cations such as potassium and calcium present in the dissolution medium. The newer
HPMC capsule shells (Vcaps® Plus) without a secondary gelling agent exhibit dissolution

RI
independent of both pH and ionic nature of the dissolution medium.126-129

Cole et al.121 discussed the influence of pH and composition of the dissolution medium

SC
on the dissolution of the HPMC capsule shells containing a gelling agent in some detail.
If water is used as the dissolution medium, both gellan and carrageenan gels dissociate

U
because of diffusion of cations out of the gel network, resulting in rapid film disruption of
AN
capsule shells and fast drug release.124,129,130 However, in acid conditions, the two gelling
agents behave differently. Carrageenan at pH 1.2 behaves in the same way as in water,
because the sulfate groups, having very low pKa, retain their negative charge, which
M

disrupts helix-helix aggregates by electrostatic repulsion when the gel-forming cations

diffuse into the surrounding acidic solution. The carboxyl groups of gellan gum, on the
D

other hand, have a much higher pKa (∼3.4), and therefore convert into the uncharged (-
TE

COOH) form at low pH, with consequent elimination of electrostatic repulsion between
the helices.123 Gellan gels, therefore, are less soluble at pH 1.2.
EP

When the dissolution medium contains sufficient gel forming potassium cations,
dissociation of the helix-helix aggregates is hindered with the result that the gel from
C

gellan and carrageenan retains its structure and the solubility is reduced. When the
dissolution medium contains sodium cations, disruption of the film is faster than if
AC

potassium cations are present. The reason for this difference is thought to be due to the
binding efficiency with which ions of different sizes can fit into potential sites on the
helices. Dissolution behavior of HPMC capsule shells containing the gelling agents in
TRIS buffer, which contains no metal cations, is similar to that in water.

Page 17 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

HPMC capsule shells have three-fold lower average moisture content (2-6%) and are less
hygroscopic than hard gelatin capsule shells.126,131 The presence of 12 to 16% water in
the hard gelatin capsule shells, as a plasticizer, is essential to maintain their integrity and
flexibility.71,72 Any alteration to this moisture range could be detrimental to the integrity
of the hard gelatin capsule shells. As HPMC capsule shells are less dependent on water as

PT
a plasticizer, these shells are less likely to break even in dry conditions, thus helping to
maintain physical stability of products against breakage.132 As a consequence of being

RI
less hygroscopic and having a lower moisture content, moisture transfer from the HPMC
capsule shells into the encapsulated fill material could potentially be reduced, thus

SC
maintaining physical and chemical stability of products containing compounds prone to
water induced precipitation and hydrolysis. An additional advantage of HPMC capsules

U
is any polar and hygroscopic solvents present in the fill formulations are less likely to
migrate into the capsule shell or to interact with the shell material. Unlike gelatin, HPMC
AN
is a non-ionic polymer and has less compatibility challenges with most encapsulated
materials and aldehyde impurities present therein.131
M

Scanning electron microscopy studies suggest that HPMC films may have looser
structure compared to gelatin films, resulting in their relatively higher oxygen
D

permeability. However, water vapor permeability through gelatin films is relatively

TE

higher than through HPMC films. Higher oxygen permeability through HPMC films is
attributed to the looseness in the structure of these films, whereas, higher water
permeability of gelatin films is attributed to the hygroscopicity of these films.131 When
EP

oxygen sensitive compounds are encapsulated into HPMC capsules, it is recommended to

include an antioxidant in the fill formulation or to package the capsule product into an
C

oxygen resistant configuration such as blister package with aluminum foil.132

AC

In vivo gamma scintigraphic studies in human subjects by Tuleu et al.133 and Jones et
al.134 comparing HPMC capsules containing kappa-carrageenan as a gelling agent with
hard gelatin capsules suggested no significant differences in the disintegration times in
either fasting or fed state (mean ± SD): 8 ± 2 min and 7 ± 3 min for HPMC and gelatin
capsules, respectively, under fasting condition and 16 ± 5 min and 12 ± 4 min for HPMC
and gelatin capsules, respectively, under fed condition. In contrast, in vivo disintegration

Page 18 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

studies by Cole et al.121 using gamma scintigraphic technique demonstrated delayed

capsule disintegration (both initial and complete) for HPMC capsules containing gellan
as a gelling agent compared to that of gelatin capsules, e.g., initial disintegration at 0.47 ±
0.17 h vs. 0.13 ± 0.06 h and complete disintegration at 0.69 ± 0.29 h vs. 0.24 ± 0.14 h for
HPMC and gelatin capsules, respectively, under fasting condition. Whereas, under fed

PT
condition, the initial disintegration times were 1.00 ± 0.37 h and 0.39 ± 0.36 h and the
complete disintegration times were 1.61 ± 0.65 h and 1.22 ± 0.80 h for HPMC and gelatin

RI
capsules, respectively. However, these differences in the disintegration times between
HPMC and gelatin capsules were found to have no significant effect on the AUC(0−∞) and

SC
Cmax of the encapsulated compound in the study subjects. Orally administered
formulations in HPMC and gelatin hard capsules were also shown to be interchangeable
by several other investigators.131,135

U
AN
5.1.2. Starch based Hard Shell Capsules

Hard capsule shells using potato starch as the film forming material have been
M

manufactured using the injection molding process and are available under the trade name
Capill®.136-138 These capsule shells are made of two pieces, a cap and a body, which can
D

be sealed together at the time of filling to prevent their separation. Sealing is achieved by
applying a hydroalcoholic solution to the inner section of the cap, immediately prior to it
TE

is being placed onto the body. The moisture content of starch capsule shells ranges
between 12-14% w/w, with more than one-half of it being tightly bound to the starch.
EP

The dissolution of starch capsule shells is independent of pH. Studies, using amoxicillin
as a model drug, demonstrated that the GIT transit times and plasma amoxicillin
C

concentrations were similar between the starch and gelatin capsules in normal human
volunteers under fasting condition.139
AC

The caps and bodies of the Capill® starch capsules are manufactured separately in
different sizes (sizes 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4). The same sized cap is designed to fit different
body lengths as the diameter of the junction of the cap and body is always the same for
all sizes of starch capsules. Unlike the ‘lipped’ seal on hard gelatin and hypromellose
capsules, the starch capsule cap fits evenly in place over the body, leading to a smooth

Page 19 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

surface finish. The area of closure between the cap and body of starch capsules is much
smaller compared to that of hard gelatin capsules. It is because the dimensions are more
tightly controlled in injection molding process used for the production of starch capsules
than in dip molding process used for the hard gelatin capsules (Figure 5).136-138 The
superior film adhesion properties of starch capsules compared to hard gelatin capsules

PT
make them amenable to coating process in the preparation of modified release dosage
forms.94 Coating of starch capsules can also be considerably easier due to their smooth

RI
seal, coupled with their higher bulk density. However, the starch hard capsules have not
gained wide acceptance due to the need for different design capsule filling equipment.

SC
5.2. Non-Gelatin Soft Shell Capsules

U
The necessary properties required of polymer films for the manufacture of soft capsules
using the rotary die process include (a) the ability of the film forming composition to be
AN
cast to form a continuous film that is mechanically strong and exhibits elasticity
sufficient to allow the film to stretch during filling and (b) the ability of the film forming
M

the two halves of the soft capsule to fuse together during the sealing process under
sufficient pressure and temperature.140,141 The temperature at which the fusion of the two
D

opposing films occurs during encapsulation should be below the melting point of the
film. This property of fusion temperature being lower than melting temperature is crucial
TE

to the manufacturing of capsules using the continuous rotary die process. If the fusion
and melting temperatures are about the same, the film will nearly completely melt during
EP

sealing of capsules. It has proven difficult to find this combination of properties in non-
gelatin polymer systems, which are typical to the gelatin polymer.
C

Starch and its derivatives in combination with other polymers have been investigated as
AC

gelatin substitutes in the production of soft capsules.140-142 Tanner et al.140,141 patented

compositions comprising a modified starch with a hydration temperature of less than
90°C, iota-carrageenan, an optional plasticizer, and sodium phosphate dibasic buffer for
use in the manufacturing soft capsules. In the conventional rotary die process used to
manufacture soft gelatin capsules, a spreader box metering device is typically employed
to cast films of a gelatin shell composition onto a chilled surface of the casting drum. As

Page 20 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the viscosities of non-gelatin shell compositions are much higher (10,000 to above 30,000
cps.) compared to those of gelatin shell compositions, it is difficult to utilize the
conventional spreader box metering device in the manufacturing of non-gelatin soft
capsules. Thus, melt-extrusion devices are employed as alternative to the spreader
boxes.143 The non-gelatin polymer blends are melt-extruded to produce films that are fed

PT
directly onto the surface of the casting drum to produce soft capsules. In contrast to soft
gelatin capsules which require the apparent pH of fill formulations be controlled between

RI
2.5 and 7.5 to maintain their stability16, the starch-carrageenan based soft capsules were
found to display high resistance to concentrated fills, alkaline fills, and those containing

SC
salts of weak acids and strong bases.144

Brown144 proposed using polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) films for the encapsulation process.

U
Such films are available commercially (Hi-Selon™, Nippon Gohsei) or may be melt-
AN
extruded at the time of encapsulation process. These films are partially hydrated just
before encapsulation to improve their flexibility, adhesivity, and ability to glue the two
halves of soft capsules within the die cavity during encapsulation process. Misic et al.145
M

introduced starch-PVA based soft capsules comprised a blend of starch, PVA, and
plasticizers (sorbitol solution and glycerol), produced by extrusion and subsequent rotary
D

die encapsulation processes. These films were produced by initially extruding a mixture
TE

of potato starch and PVA with plasticizers through a double-screw extruder to form
granules. These granules were again extruded using a single-screw extruder and the
extrudate was pressed through a slit die to form a film for encapsulation. In contrast to
EP

soft gelatin capsules where considerable water migration from the soft gelatin shell into a
hydrophilic fill formulation and resulting drug crystallization may potentially occur, the
C

risk of any substantial water migration or drug crystallization in starch-PVA based soft
AC

capsules was found to be minimal or absent.145 The starch-PVA based soft capsules were
also found to exhibit more surface roughness and higher resistance to mechanical
deformation compared with soft gelatin capsules. The surface roughness and higher
mechanical strength of the starch-PVA based soft capsules would make these capsules
more amenable to successful coating process.

Page 21 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6. MODIFIED RELEASE CAPSULE DOSAGE FORMS

Coating of a solid dosage form such as tablets and pellets is routinely applied to protect
the dosage form and its contents against moisture and oxygen, to mask unpleasant taste
and odor, to improve elegance, and to control the site or rate of release of a drug. Enteric

PT
coating is desirable for the administration of medications, which cause gastric distress or
are unstable in the stomach acid environment. In addition to enteric coating, which delays

RI
the release of a drug from the dosage form until it reaches small intestine, other types of
coatings are also applied to deliver a drug at an intended site of the GIT (site specific

SC
release) or to release a drug over an extended period (extended release).

The enteric coating materials are carboxylic group containing polymers, such as cellulose

U
acetate phthalate (CAP), hydroxypropyl methylcellulose phthalate (HPMCP),
hydroxypropyl methylcellulose acetate succinate (HPMC-AS), polyvinyl acetate
AN
phthalate (PVAP), acrylic acid copolymers, and shellac. These enteric polymer
compositions can be applied onto dosage forms as aqueous dispersions or organic
M

solutions. Coating of tablets and pellets can be achieved relatively easily by known
coating processes (e.g., pan coating or fluidized bed coating) owing to their porous
D

surfaces, which readily adhere to the coating substances. In contrast, difficulties arise
when coating gelatin capsules because of their smooth, non-adsorptive surfaces and
TE

flexibility. The gelatin capsule shells may soften and become sticky during the coating
process due to solubilization of gelatin.146 In addition, the gelatin shells may become
EP

brittle during the drying process and prone to breakage under only slight pressure. The
acidic enteric polymers are also thought to possibly penetrate the gelatin shells and cause
C

the embrittlement therein.

AC

The surface of the gelatin capsules with an improved capacity for adhering to coating
compositions may be achieved by applying to the outer surface of the capsules a layer of
a sub-coating of HPMC146,147, hydroxypropyl cellulose148,149, polyvinylpyrrolidone148, or
cationic methacrylate/neutral methacrylate polymers150,151. This sub-coating is thought to
provide the gelatin capsules with better mechanical strength and improved capacity for
adhering to the coating compositions. The sub-coating layer can also prevent the

Page 22 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

penetration of the highly acidic enteric polymers into the gelatin shells and thereby
prevent their embrittlement.151 The addition of PEG 400 and PEG 6000 to the coating
formulation was also reported to provide improved adhesion of the polymer to the gelatin
shell.146 Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) studies suggest that, in contrast to gelatin
capsules, HPMC capsules have rough surfaces, which provide for good adhesion to the

PT
coating.148,152

RI
Studies by Dvorácková et al.148 suggest that hard gelatin capsules can be coated directly
with organic enteric polymer solutions at lower coating levels without any challenges.

SC
These lower coating levels may not be sufficient to cover the junction zone between the
capsule body and cap and to provide sufficient enteric protection to the capsules.148,149
However, these gelatin capsules were shown to display ‘orange peel effect’ at higher

U
coating levels, which was eliminated by sub-coating the capsules with a hydroxypropyl
AN
cellulose (HPC) intermediate layer.148 The HPMC capsules, on the other hand, were
successfully coated at all coating levels with organic enteric polymer solutions without an
HPC intermediate layer. It appears that the application of an HPC intermediate layer is
M

necessary for practical utilization of enteric coatings onto gelatin capsules. Dvorácková et
al.148 speculated that the intermediate sub-coat changed the smooth surface of gelatin
D

capsules that made these capsules amenable to enteric coating.

TE

The enteric-coated capsules may also require an overcoat typically composed of HPC or
HPMC to improve the physical stability by preventing adhesion of capsules together and
EP

chemical stability on storage and during stability studies, especially under accelerated
stability conditions (40 °C/75% RH).146,149 The enteric polymers are known to undergo
C

hydrolysis thereby reduce their enteric effectiveness with time.149 The overcoat can
minimize the moisture transfer through the film and thereby reduce the hydrolysis of the
AC

enteric polymer and improve the stability of the coated capsules.

Alternate to the surface coating of capsules with enteric polymers, enteric capsules can
also be manufactured by incorporating the enteric polymers within the capsule shell
itself153-156 These enteric capsules were shown to be soluble in or disintegrated by the
intestinal secretions but insoluble or resistant to the acid secretions of the stomach. As an

Page 23 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

approach, patented by Okajima153, the body and cap portions of hard shell capsules can
be formed by dip molding using a homogeneous film-forming mixture comprising a film
former such as HPMC or gelatin, an ammonium salt of cellulose acetate phthalate
polymer or of a copolymer of methacrylic acid and methacrylic acid alkyl ester, and with
an optional plasticizer. The body and cap portions of such acid resistant two-piece hard

PT
capsules can be sealed with an acid resistant banding solution to achieve increased acid
resistance.157,158

RI
Ready-to-use enteric hard capsule shells in which the enteric polymer is already

SC
incorporated within are commercially available (DRcaps™, Vcaps™ Enteric, and
enTRinsic™ from Capsugel) which can be filled with formulations.156 Capsugel Vcaps®
HPMC hard capsule shells contain a small amount of gellan as the gelling agent

U
(typically below 1 part by weight per about 100 parts by weight of HPMC) and either
AN
ethylenediamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) or sodium citrate as a gelling promoter.126 The
use of a gelling agent is essential to be able to manufacture HPMC hard capsule shells
using the conventional dip molding process. The carboxyl groups of gellan have a pKa
M

around 3.4 and convert into the unionized form (-COOH) with a lower aqueous solubility
at pH 1.2, thus providing some level of enteric protection. The lower amounts of gellan
D

used in the Vcaps® HPMC capsules, however, do not provide sufficient acid resistance to
TE

qualify for the enteric dosage form (i.e., to meet compendial dissolution test requirements
for enteric products). Use of higher amounts of gellan may cause excessive increase in
viscosity of the aqueous composition thus making it difficult to manufacture the capsule
EP

shells at the commercially desirable high speeds and quality using the conventional dip
molding process. Cade and He156 identified that when the hard capsule shells (DRcaps™
C

from Capsugel) were produced at 4 to 15 parts by weight of gellan per 100 parts by
AC

weight of HPMC, such capsule shells can exhibit acid resistance for at least one hour at
pH 1.2 and also can be produced without compromising processability during the
conventional dip molding process. These compositions also provide an advantage of not
requiring any additional gelling promoter. Ready-to-use Capsugel Vcaps® Enteric HPMC
capsule shells contain hydroxypropyl methylcellulose acetate succinate (HPMC-AS) to
provide enteric protection.

Page 24 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In another approach, Hassan et al.154 and Rao and Khadgapathi155 presented compositions
comprising of gelatin, an enteric polymer, an aqueous alkaline solvent, and a plasticizer
to manufacture enteric soft gelatin capsules using rotary die process. This approach
provides a method for manufacturing enteric soft capsules without the need for coating.
In this approach, the enteric gel mass is prepared by initially dissolving the enteric

PT
polymer in an aqueous solution of an alkali to get a clear enteric polymer solution.
Gelatin is wetted with water and a plasticizer separately in a heated vessel, which is then

RI
mixed with the enteric polymer solution to make a final clear homogeneous gel mass.
The gel mass is degassed under vacuum to remove any entrapped air and excess of the

SC
alkali. The step to neutralize (ionize) the enteric polymer with an alkali before addition to
the gel mass is essential in producing clear gel films for encapsulation. Gel films

U
produced without the neutralization step are usually cloudy. A volatile alkali such as
ammonium hydroxide is preferred as it is easier to remove any excess amount during
AN
degassing the gel mass. Neutralization of the enteric polymer can also be achieved using
a basic amino acid such as arginine.159 However, gel films produced using the basic
M

amino acids are usually cloudy due to the weak neutralizing capacity of these basic amino
acids. The cloudy appearance these enteric gelatin films can be improved by the use of
D

increased amounts of a hydrophilic plasticizer.

TE

Valproic acid delayed release soft gelatin capsules (Stavzor®, Banner Pharmacaps, Inc.)
were commercially available in 125 mg, 250 mg, and 500 mg strengths for the treatment
of seizure disorders, manic episodes, and migraine prophylaxis. The immediate release
EP

valproic acid dosage forms are associated with gastric side effects such as nausea and
vomiting. The delayed release property is purported to help alleviate these side effects.
C

The Stavzor® delayed release soft gelatin capsules contain neat valproic acid fill
AC

encapsulated in a soft shell comprised of gelatin, methacrylic acid copolymer, glycerin,

triethyl citrate, ammonium hydroxide, and water (NDA 22-152; FDA approval
package160).

The choice of the salt form used to prepare the enteric coating solution can influence the
disintegration properties of the enteric-coated capsules. Al-Gousous et al.161
demonstrated that the shellac-based enteric coatings obtained using alkali metal salts

Page 25 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(sodium and potassium) display faster disintegration properties of capsule shells

compared to those obtained using ammonium salts. The films cast from ammonium-
based salts of shellac, unlike those cast from alkali metal-based salts, were also shown to
be water-insoluble. Al-Gousous et al.161 hypothesized that the loss of ammonium as
ammonia and resulting reduced degree of shellac ionization during drying was a probable

PT
explanation for the loss of disintegration properties of the enteric-coated capsules with
ammonium salts compared to those with alkali metal salts.

RI
Prior to the application of polymers to effect enteric properties to gelatin capsules, gelatin

SC
capsules were rendered resistant to gastric juices by treating them with formaldehyde
either in gaseous state or in solution state.162,163 However, it is very difficult to control the
exposure of the gelatin capsules to formaldehyde to yield consistent gastric juice resistant

U
and intestinal solubility properties of the capsules. In addition, these properties of
AN
formaldehyde treated gelatin capsules tend to change with time.149 The stomach and
intestinal solubilities of the gelatin capsules treated with formaldehyde also depend on the
levels of digestive enzymes (e.g., pepsin and pancreatin), which are known to show
M

significant inter and intra subject variability. In contrast, the dissolution of capsule shells
containing enteric polymers is exclusively dependent on the pH of the digestive juices
D

and not on the levels of digestive enzymes.

TE

7. SELECTION: SOFT CAPSULES VERSUS HARD CAPSULES

EP

When a compound is formulated in a non-aqueous vehicle, the choice to encapsulate the

formulation into soft capsules or hard capsules is determined by several factors.
C

a. Tolerance of the capsule shell towards the fill composition:

AC

Any alteration to the moisture range outside 12 - 16% in the hard gelatin capsule
shells due to its migration could be detrimental to the integrity the shells. Hard gelatin
capsule shells filled with PEG 400 and PEG 600 are prone to become fragile and
breakage due to the migration of moisture from the capsule shell into the PEG fill.
These lower molecular weight PEGs are also expected to migrate into the hard gelatin
capsule shells and soften them due to their plasticizing effect. Hard gelatin shells, on

Page 26 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the other hand, have been reported to be compatible with PEGs of molecular weights
higher than 4000. In contrast, the presence of a plasticizer in the soft gelatin capsule
shells imparts elasticity that allows the shells to accommodate a wide range of
hydrophilic excipients such as PEG 400 and PEG 600. Lipophilic vehicles are
compatible with both soft and hard capsule shells.

PT
b. Tolerance of the fill formulation towards the shell water content:

RI
Soft gelatin capsule shells typically contain water from 30 to 40% w/w at the time of
encapsulation process and about 8 to 10% during the shelf life.164 Depending on the

SC
nature of the fill formulation, it may pick up and retain water anywhere from near
zero percent (e.g., soybean oil, olive oil) to 10% (e.g., PEG 400).164 In contrast,

U
though, hard gelatin capsule shells may contain water from 12 to 16%71,72, the
absolute water amount is relatively much lower compared to soft gelatin capsule
AN
shells (as hard capsule shells are much thinner and lighter) and also is in the bound
state, the extent of its migration into the fill and thus any adverse influence on the
M

crystallization and/or to hydrolytic degradation of encapsulated compounds is

minimal. As HPMC hard capsule shells contain even much lower water content (2-
D

6%)126,131 compared to those of hard gelatin capsules, the extent of water migration
and its adverse influence on the stability of encapsulated compounds are even much
TE

lower in HPMC capsules. Thus, the relative stability against crystallization and/or to
hydrolytic degradation of encapsulated compounds in capsules follows the order:
EP

HPMC capsules > hard gelatin capsules > soft gelatin capsules.

Aspirin is proven to be difficult to formulate in vehicles for encapsulation into

C

capsules due to its potential hydrolysis to salicylic acid. USP-NF limits the presence
AC

of salicylic acid content in aspirin dosage forms at not more than 3%. Aspirin is
stabilized in the capsule product by formulating as a lipid suspension and
encapsulating into HPMC hard capsules (NDA 203697; PLx Pharma Inc.).165

c. Physical characteristics of fill formulation:

Page 27 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

When a compound is formulated as a low viscous, non-aqueous solution, soft

capsules may be ideal to deliver the solution. As soft capsules are filled entirely with
no headspace and sealed hermetically, the likelihood of leakage of low viscous fill
materials is reduced and oxidative stability of encapsulated compounds is improved.
In contrast, the presence of headspace and moderately sealed junction in hard

PT
capsules may compromise oxidative stability of encapsulated compounds and may
risk leakage of low viscous fill materials.

RI
Fill formulations requiring encapsulation at temperatures much higher (e.g., hot

SC
melts, high viscosity fills) than what soft gelatin capsule encapsulation process can
tolerate (~ 35°C - <40°C) can be readily encapsulated into hard capsules. The
commercially available vancomycin capsules are produced by filling a dispersion of

U
vancomycin hydrochloride in PEG 6000 into hard gelatin capsules at temperatures
AN
higher than the melting point of PEG 6000 (55-63°C).166 Vancomycin hydrochloride
is highly hygroscopic and picks up moisture rapidly and extensively during routine
M

pharmaceutical processing operations and on storage. PEGs with molecular weights

4000 and higher exhibit minimal moisture uptake when exposed to elevated relative
humidity conditions.167 In vancomycin capsule product, PEG 6000 provides
D

protection to vancomycin against high relative humidity conditions and thus improves
TE

the stability of vancomycin.166 Fill formulations requiring higher encapsulation

temperatures, such as higher melting point PEGs and waxes can generate aldehydes
EP

that may potentially cross-link gelatin and reduce the dissolution of gelatin capsule
shells. Use of HPMC capsule shells may be sensible in those cases.
C

d. In-house existing development and manufacturing capabilities:

AC

Manufacture of soft capsules is inherently a very complex, labor-intensive, cost-

intensive, and time consuming process that requires not only acquiring and
maintaining specialized and costly equipment but also developing in-house technical
and operational expertise. As a result, organizations are reluctant to set up their own
soft capsules manufacturing operation in-house and prefer to outsource these
activities to an external contract manufacturer. As empty hard capsule shells of

Page 28 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

desired features (i.e., size, color, and logo) and equipment for filling and sealing the
capsule shells are readily available, it is easier for an organization to set up
capabilities and manufacture hard capsule products in-house.

8. CONCLUSION

PT
Polymeric film forming materials and manufacturing technologies used in the production
of capsule shells have been developed to offer additional consumer acceptability, to

RI
improve the dosage form physical and chemical stability, and to modify release of the
encapsulated contents from the dosage form. These developments resulted in the use of

SC
hypromellose and starch based polymeric materials as alternate to the animal source
gelatin in the manufacture of capsule shells. Hypromellose capsule shells have lower

U
moisture content and hygroscopicity than gelatin capsule shells. As a result, moisture
transfer from the hypromellose capsule shells into the encapsulated fill material is lower
AN
and thus the physical and chemical stability of hypromellose shell based products
containing compounds prone to water induced precipitation and hydrolysis is improved.
M

Gelatin and non-gelatin capsule shells can also be formulated to modify the release of
their fill contents in a site-specific manner in the GIT either by coating the filled capsules
D

with a modified release polymer or by incorporating the polymer within the capsule shell
before filling. These modified release capsule shells are soluble in or disintegrated by the
TE

intestinal secretions but resistant to the acid secretions of the stomach.

EP

9. REFERENCES

1. Seager H. 1985. Soft gelatin capsules: a solution to many tableting problems. Pharm
C

Technol 9:84-104.
AC

2. Cole ET, Cade D, Benameur H. 2008. Challenges and opportunities in the

encapsulation of liquid and semi-solid formulations into capsules for oral
administration. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 60:747-756.

3. Cade D, Cole ET, Mayer JPH, Wittwer F. 1986. Liquid filled and sealed hard
gelatin capsules. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 12:2289-2300.

Page 29 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4. Singh S, Rama Rao KV, Venugopal K, Manikandan R. 2002. Alteration in

dissolution characteristics of gelatin-containing formulations. A review of the
problem, test methods, and solutions. Pharm Technol 26:36-58.

5. Price JC, 2006a. Gelatin. In: Rowe RC, Sheskey PJ, Owen SC, editors. Handbook

PT
of Pharmaceutical Excipients, 5th Ed., London: Pharmaceutical Press and
Washington DC: American Pharmacists Association. pp 295-298.

RI
6. Kenchington AW. 1958. Chemical modification of the side chains of gelatin.
Biochem J 68:458-468.

SC
7. Eastoe JE, Leach AA. 1977. Chemical constitution of gelatin. In: Ward AG, Courts

U
A, editors. The science and technology of gelatin, New York: Academic Press. pp
77-80.
AN
8. Sheppard SE, Houck RC, Dittmar C. 1942. The sorption of soluble dyes by gelatin.
M

J Phys Chem 46:158-176.

9. Veis A. 1964. The conversion of collagen to gelatin. In: Veis A, editor. The
D

Macromolecular Chemistry of Gelatin, New York: Academic Press. pp 186-202.

TE

10. Warner RC, Cannan RK. 1942. The formation of ammonia from proteins in alkaline
solution. J Biol Chem 142:725-739.
EP

11. Sidney WF. 1938. The preparation of citrulline by hydrolysis of arginine. J Biol
Chem 123:687-690.
C
AC

12. Bogue RH. 1923. Conditions affecting the hydrolysis of collagen to gelatin. Ind Eng
Chem 15:1154-1159.

13. Patel K, Kearney AS, Palepu NR. 1997. Investigation of new degradation products
arising from the encapsulation of an oil-based suspension formulation of topotecan.
Int J Pharm 151:7-13.

Page 30 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

14. Montero P, Borderias J, Turnay J, Leyzarbe MA. 1990. Characterization of hake

(Merluccius merluccius L.) and trout (Salmo irideus Gibb) collagen. J Agric Food
Chem 38:604-609.

15. Ling WC. 1978. Thermal degradation of gelatin as applied to processing of gel

PT
mass. J Pharm Sci 67:218-223.

16. Croome RJ. 1953. Acid and alkaline hydrolysis of gelatin. J appl Chem 3:280-286.

RI
17. Ames WM. 1947. Heat degradation of gelatin. J Soc Chem Ind 66:279-284.

SC
18. Courts A. 1954. The N-terminal amino acid residues of gelatin. 2. Thermal
degradation. Biochem J 58:74-79.

U
AN
19. Shoulders MD, Raines RT. 2009. Collagen structure and stability. Annu Rev
Biochem 78:929-958.
M

20. Djabourov M, Leblond J, Papon P. 1988. Gelation of aqueous gelatin solutions. I.

Structural investigation. J Phys France 49:319-332.
D

21. Joly-Duhamel C, Hellio D, Djabourov M. 2002. All gelatin networks: 1.

TE

biodiversity and physical chemistry. Langmuir 18:7208-7217.

22. Joly-Duhamel C, Hellio D, Ajdari A, Djabourov M. 2002. All gelatin networks: 2.

EP

the master curve for elasticity. Langmuir 18:7158-7166.

C

23. Veis A, Cohen J. 1960. Reversible transformation of gelatin to the collagen

structure. Nature 186:720-721.
AC

24. Nishio T, Hayashi R. 1985. Regeneration of a collagen-like circular dichroism

spectrum from industrial gelatin. Agric Biol Chem 49:1675-1682.

25. Kozlov PV, Burdygina GI. 1983. The structure and properties of solid gelatin and
the principles of their modification. Polymer 24:651-666.

Page 31 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

26. Wüstneck R, Wetzel R, Buder E, Hermel H. 1988. The modification of the triple
helical structure of gelatin in aqueous solution I. the influence of anionic
surfactants, pH-value, and temperature. Colloid Polym Sci 266:1061-1067.

27. Wüstneck R, Buder E, Wetzel R, Hermel H. 1989. The modification of the triple

PT
helical structure of gelatin in aqueous solution 3. the influence of cationic
surfactants. Colloid Polym Sci 267:429-433.

RI
28. Wüstneck R, Buder E, Wetzel R, Hermel H. 1989. The modification of the triple
helical structure of gelatin in aqueous solution 3. the influence of nonionic

SC
surfactants. Colloid Polym Sci 267:516-519.

U
29. Dranca I, Vyazovkin S. 2009. Thermal stability of gelatin gels: effect of preparation
conditions on the activation energy barrier to melting. Polymer 50:4859-4867.
AN
30. Gómez-Estaca J, Montero P, Fernández-Martín F, Gómez-Guillén MC. 2009.
M

Physico-chemical and film-forming properties of bovine-hide and tuna-skin gelatin:

A comparative study. J Food Engineering 90:480-486.
D

31. Burjanadze TV. 1979. Hydroxyproline content and location in relation to collagen
TE

thermal stability. Biopolymers 18:931-938.

32. Eastoe JE. 1957. The amino acid composition of fish collagen and gelatin. Biochem
EP

J 65(2):363-368.

33. Piez KA, Gross JG. 1960. The amino acid composition of some fish collagens: The
C

relation between composition and structure. J Biological Chem 235:995-998.

AC

34. Sarabia AI, Gomez-Guillen MC, Montero P. 2000. The effect of added salt on the
viscoelastic properties of fish skin gelatin. Food Chemistry 70:71-76.

35. Fujitsu M, Hattori M, Tamura T. 1997. Effects of hydroxy compounds on gel

formation of gelatin. Colloid Polym Sci 275:67-72.

Page 32 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

36. Gekko K, Li X, Makino S. 1992. Effects of polyols and sugars on the sol-gel
transition of gelatin. Biosci Biotech Biochem 56:1279-1284.

37. Courts A. 1962. Citrate-promoted helix formation in gelatin. The viscosity-time

effect. Biochem J 83:124-129.

PT
38. Kakiyama H, Katsurai T. 1964. The influence of heat treatment on the solidification
time of the reversible sol-gel transformation of gelatin. Bull Chem Soc Jap 37:759-

RI
760.

SC
39. Fraenkel-Conrat H, Olcott HS. 1945. Esterification of proteins with alcohols of low
molecular weight. J Biol Chem 161:259-268.

40.
U
Clark RC, Courts A. 1977. The chemical reactivity of gelatin. In: Ward AG, Courts
AN
A, editors. The science and technology of gelatin, New York: Academic Press. pp
214-215.
M

41. Bello J, Vinograd JR. 1956. Selective acetylation of the hydroxyl groups in gelatin.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 78(7):1369-1372.
D

42. Olcott HS, Fraenkel-Conrat H. 1947. Specific group reagents for proteins. Chem
TE

Rev 41:151-197.
EP

43. Yannas IV, Tobolsky AV. 1967. Cross-linking of gelatine by dehydration. Nature
215:509-510.
C

44. Dey M, Enever R, Kraml M, Prue DG, Smith D, Weierstall R. 1993. The
AC

dissolution and bioavailability of etodolac from capsules exposed to conditions of

high relative humidity and temperatures. Pharm Res 10:1295-1300.

45. Matsuda Y, Kouzuki K, Tanaka M, Tanaka Y, Tanigaki J. 1979. Photostability of

gelatin capsules : effect of ultraviolet irradiation on the water vapor transmission
properties and dissolution rates of indomethacin. Yakugaku Zasshi 99:907-913.

Page 33 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

46. Bessho M, Kojima T, Okuda S, Hara M. 2007. Radiation-induced cross-linking of

gelatin by using γ-rays: insoluble gelatin hydrogel formation. Bull Chem Soc Jap
80:979-985.

47. Tomoda Y, Tsuda M. 1961. Some aspects of the crosslinking and degradation of

PT
gelatin molecules in aqueous solution irradiated by 60Co γ-rays. J Polym Sci
54:321-328.

RI
48. Vieira FF, Del Mastro NL. 2002. Comparison of γ-radiation and electron beam
irradiation effects on gelatin. Radiat Phys Chem 63:331-332.

SC
49. Reich VG. 1995. Effect of drying conditions on structure and properties of gelatin

U
capsules: Studies with gelatin films. Pharm Ind 57:63-67.
AN
50. Sheehan JC, Hlavka JJ. 1957. The cross-linking of gelatin using a water-soluble
carbodiimide. J Am Chem Soc 79:4528-4529.
M

51. Davis P, Tabor BE. 1963. Kinetic study of the crosslinking of gelatin by
formaldehyde and glyoxal. J Polymer Sci Part A General Papers 1:799-815.
D

52. Digenis GA, Gold TB, Shah VP. 1994. Cross-linking of gelatin capsules and its
TE

relevance to their in vitro–in vivo performance. J Pharm Sci 83:915-921.

EP

53. Gold TB, Buice RG, Lodder RA, Digenis GA. 1998. Detection of formaldehyde-
induced crosslinking in soft elastic gelatin capsules using near-infrared
spectrophotometry. Pharm Dev Technol 3:209-214.
C
AC

54. de Carvalho RA, Grosso CRF. 2004. Characterization of gelatin based films
modified with transglutaminase, glyoxal and formaldehyde. Food Hydrocolloids
18:717-726.

55. Albert K, Bayer E, Worsching A, Vogele H. 1991. Investigation of the hardening

reaction of gelatin with 13C labeled formaldehyde by solution and solid state 13C
NMR spectroscopy. Z Naturforsch 46:385-389.

Page 34 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

56. Albert K, Peters B, Bayer E, Treiber U, Zwilling M. 1986. Crosslinking of gelatin

with formaldehyde: a 13C NMR study. Z Naturforsch 41:351-358.

57. Gholap D, Singh S. 2004. The influence of drugs on gelatin cross-linking. Pharm
Technol 28:94-102.

PT
58. Ofner CM, Zhang Y, Jobeck VC, Bowman BJ. 2001. Crosslinking studies in gelatin
capsules treated with formaldehyde and in capsules exposed to elevated temperature

RI
and humidity. J Pharm Sci 90:79-88.

SC
59. Cooper JW, Ansel HC, Cadwallader DE. 1973. Liquid and solid interactions of
primary certified colorants with pharmaceutical gelatins. J Pharm Sci 62:1156-

U
1164. AN
60. Gautam J, Schott H. 1994. Interaction of anionic compounds with gelatin I: binding
studies. J Pharm Sci 83:922-930.
M

61. Yamamoto T, Kobayashi M, Matsuura S. 1995. Gelatin coating composition and

hard gelatin capsule. US Patent 5,419,916.
D

62. Hwan YJ. 2003. Method of manufacturing succinylated gelatin. Patent Publication
TE

KR20030077501.
EP

63. Jones RT. 2003. Succinylated fish gelatin. European Patent Publication EP1367066.

64. Dolphin JM, Keenan T, Russell JD, Babel W. 2009. Process for making a low
C

molecular weight gelatine hydrolysate and gelatine hydrolysate compositions. US

AC

Patent 7,485,323.

65. Dolphin JM, Russell JD. 2011. Process for making a low molecular weight gelatine
hydrolysate. US Patent 7,897,728.

66. Wild F, Vidon D, Metziger P. 1993. Survival of microorganisms in a soft gelatin

capsule shell with and without parabens. STP Pharma Sci 3:346-350.

Page 35 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

67. Marshall BJ, Ohye DF, Christian HB. 1971. Tolerance of bacteria to high
concentrations of NaCl and glycerol in the growth medium. Appl Microbiol 21:363-
364.

68. Burcik E. 1950. Über die Beziehungen zwischen Hydratur und Wachstum bei

PT
Bakterien und Hefen. Archiv für Mikrobiologie 15:203-235.

69. Scott WJ. 1953. Water relations of Staphylococcus aureus at 30°C. Aust J Biol Sci

RI
6:549-564.

SC
70. Christian JHB. 1980. Reduced water activity. In: Silliker JH, editor. Microbial
Ecology of Foods: Factors Affecting Life and Death of Microorganisms, Vol 1,

U
New York: Academic Press. pp 70-91.
AN
71. Kontny, M.J.; Mulski, C.A. (1989) Gelatin capsule brittleness as a function of
relative humidity at room temperature. Int. J. Pharm. 54, 79-85.
M

72. Jones, B.E. (2004). Manufacture and properties of two-piece hard capsules. In:
Podczeck F, Jones BE, editors. Pharmaceutical Capsules, 2nd Ed., London:
D

Pharmaceutical Press. pp 93-94.

TE

73. Coppola M, Djabourov M, Ferrand M. 2008. Phase diagram of gelatin plasticized

by water and glycerol. Macromolecular Symposia 273:56-65.
EP

74. Sobral PJA, Menegalli FC, Hubinger MD, Roques MA. 2001. Mechanical, water
vapor barrier and thermal properties of gelatin based edible films. Food
C

Hydrocolloids 15:423-432.
AC

75. Rivero S, Garcia MA, Pinotti A. 2010. Correlation between structural, barrier,
thermal and mechanical properties of plasticized gelatin films. Innovative Food
Science and Emerging Technologies 11:369-375.

Page 36 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

76. Vanin FM, Sobral PJA, Menegalli FC, Carvalho RA, Habitante AMQB. 2005.
Effects of plasticizers and their concentrations on thermal and functional properties
of gelatin-based films. Food Hydrocolloids 19:899-907.

77. Yannas IV, Tobolsky AV. 1966. Transitions in gelatin-nonaqueous diluent systems.

PT
J Macromol Chem 1:723-737.

78. Brox W. 1988. Soft gelatin capsules and methods for their production. US Patent

RI
4,744,988.

SC
79. Steele D, Dietel G. 1993. Softgel manufacturing process. US Patent 5,200,191.

80. Vrana A. 2003. Reduction of gelatin cross-linking. WIPO International Publication

Number WO/2003/103582.
U
AN
81. Thomazine M, Carvalho RA, Sobral PJA. 2005. Physical properties of gelatin films
plasticized by blends of glycerin and sorbitol. J Food Sci 70:172-176.
M

82. Oses J, Fernandez-Pan I, Mendoza M, Mate JI. 2009. Stability of the mechanical
D

properties of edible films based on whey protein isolate during storage at different
relative humidity. Food Hydrocolloids 23:125-131.
TE

83. Sakanaka LS, Sobral PJA, Menegalli FC. 2001. Proceeding of a meeting on cross-
EP

linked gelatin biofilms mechanical and permeability properties as affected by

storage conditions. III Congreso Ibero-Americano de Ingenieria de Alimentos.
Valencia, Espana: Press of the Politechnique University. pp 197-202.
C
AC

84. Cao N, Yang X, Fu Y. 2009. Effects of various plasticizers on mechanical and

water vapor barrier properties of gelatin films. Food Hydrocolloids 23:729-735.

85. Laohakunjit N, Noomhorm A. 2004. Effect of plasticizers on mechanical and

barrier properties of rice starch film. Starch/Starke 56:348-356.

Page 37 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

86. Moreton RC, Armstrong NA. 1998. The effect of film composition on the diffusion
of ethanol through soft gelatin films. Int J Pharm 161:123-131.

87. Hom FS, Veresh SA, Ebert WR. 1975. Soft gelatin capsules II. Oxygen
permeability study of capsule shells. J Pharm Sci 64:851-857.

PT
88. Moreton RC, Armstrong NA. 1995. Design and use of an apparatus for measuring
diffusion through glycerogelatin films. Int J Pharm 122:79-89.

RI
89. Andreuccetti C, Carvalho RA, Grosso CRF. 2009. Effect of hydrophobic

SC
plasticizers on functional properties of gelatin-based films. Food Research
International 42:1113-1121.

90.
U
Scherer RP. Canadian Patents CA333007 (1933), CA416849 (1943), CA416850
AN
(1943), CA422183 (1944), and CA453243 (1948).

91. Wittwer F. 1985. New developments in hermetic sealing of hard gelatin capsules.
M

Pharm Manuf 2:24-27.

D

92. Walters PA, Rowley G, Pearson JT, Taylor CJ. 1992. Formulation and physical
properties of thixotropic gels for hard gelatin capsules. Drug Dev Ind Pharm
TE

18:1613-1631.
EP

93. Walker SE, Ganley JA, Bedford K, Eaves T. 1980. The filling of molten and
thixotropic formulations into hard gelatin capsules. J Pharm Pharmacol 32:389-393.
C

94. Burns SJ, Corness D, Hay G, Higginbottom S, Whelan I, Attwood D, Barnwell SG.
AC

1996. An in vitro assessment of liquid-filled capill® potato starch capsules with

biphasic release characteristics. Int J Pharm 134:223-230.

95. Chatham SM. 1987. The use of bases in semi-solid matrix formulations. STP
Pharma. 3:575-582.

Page 38 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

96. Rowley G. 2004. Filling of liquids and semi-solids into hard two-piece capsules. In:
Podczeck F, Jones BE, editors. Pharmaceutical capsules. 2nd edition. London:
Pharmaceutical Press. pp. 169-194.

97. Stein D, Bindra DS. 2007. Stabilization of hard gelatin capsule shells filled with

PT
polyethylene glycol matrices. Pharm Dev Tech 12:71-77.

98. Nazzal S, Wang Y. 2001. Characterization of soft gelatin capsules by thermal

RI
analysis. Int J Pharm 230:35-45

SC
99. Brox W. 1988. Gelatin capsule. US Patent 4,780,316.

100. Shah NH, Stiel D, Infeld MH, Railkar AS, Malick AW, Patrawala M. 1992.

U
Elasticity of soft gelatin capsules containing polyethylene glycol 400-quantitation
AN
and resolution. Pharm Technol 3:126-131.

101. Groves MJ, Bassett B, Sheth V. 1984. The solubility of 17 boestradiol in aqueous
M

polyethylene glycol 400. J Pharm Pharmacol 36:799-802.

D

102. Serajuddin ATM, Sheen PC, Augustine MA. 1986. Water migration from soft
gelatin capsule shell to fill material and its effect on drug solubility. J Pharm Sci
TE

75:62-64.
EP

103. Aungst BJ, Nguyen NH, Rogers NJ, Rowe SM, Hussain MA, White SJ, Shum L.
1997. Amphiphilic vehicles improve the oral bioavailability of a poorly soluble
HIV protease inhibitor at high doses. Int J Pharm 156:79-88.
C
AC

104. Cao Y, Marra M, Anderson BD. 2004. Predictive relationships for the effects of
triglyceride ester concentration and water uptake on solubility and partitioning of
small molecules into lipid vehicles. J Pharm Sci 93:2768-2779.

105. Land LM, Li P, Bummer PM. 2005. The influence of water content of triglyceride
oils on the solubility of steroids. Pharm Res 22:784-788.

Page 39 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

106. Bindra DS, Williams TD, Stella VJ. 1994. Degradation of O6-Benzylguanine in
aqueous Polyethylene glycol 400 (PEG 400) solutions: Concerns with
formaldehyde in PEG 400. Pharm Res 11:1060-1064.

107. McGinity JW, Hill JA, La Via AL. 1975. Influence of peroxide impurities in

PT
polyethylene glycols on drug stability. J Pharm Sci 64:356-357.

108. Johnson DM, Taylor WF. 1984. Degradation of fenprostalene in Polyethylene

RI
glycol 400 solution. J Pharm Sci 73:1414-1417.

SC
109. Kiritsakis AK, Dugan LR. 1984. Effect of selected storage conditions and
packaging materials on olive oil quality. JAOCS 61:1868-1870.

U
110. Brodnitz MH. 1968. Autoxidation of saturated fatty acids. A review. J Agric Food
AN
Chem 16:994-999.

111. Stirton AJ, Turer H, Riemenschneider RW. 1945. Oxygen absorption of methyl
M

esters of fatty acids and the effect of antioxidants. Oil Soap 22:81-83.
D

112. Donbrow M, Hamburger R, Azaz E, Pillersdorf A. 1978. Development of acidity in

non-ionic surfactants: formic and acetic acid. Analyst 103:400-402
TE

113. Hemenway JN, Carvalho TC, Rao VM, Wu Y, Levons JK, Narang AS, Paruchuri
EP

SR, Stamato HJ, Varia SA. 2012. Formation of reactive impurities in aqueous and
neat polyethylene glycol 400 and effects of antioxidants and oxidation inducers. J
Pharm Sci 101:3305-3318.
C
AC

114. Tanner KE, Shelley RS, Stroud NS, Youngblood E. 2012. Non-gelatin soft capsule
system. US Patent 8,231,896.

115. Hom FS, Veresh SA, Miskel JJ. 1973. Soft gelatin capsules I: factors affecting
capsule-shell dissolution rate. J Pharm Sci 62:1001-1006.

Page 40 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

116. Armstrong NA, James KC, Pugh KL. 1984. Drug migration into soft gelatin capsule
shells and its effect on in-vitro availability. J Pharm Pharmacol 36:361-365.

117. Tralhao AML, Watkinson AC, Brain KR, Hadgraft J, Armstrong NA. 1995. Use of
ATR-FTIR spectroscopy to study the diffusion of ethanol through glycerogelatin

PT
films. Pharm Res 12:572-575

118. Kim JW, Shin HJ, Yang SG. 1997. Cyclosporine-containing pharmaceutical

RI
composition. WO/1997/036610.

SC
119. Hauer B, Meinzer A, Posanski U, Richter F. 1994. Pharmaceutical compositions
comprising cyclosporins. US Patent 5,342,625.

U
120. Brox W, Meinzer A, Zande H. 2006. Soft gelatin capsule manufacture. US Patent
AN
7,078,054.

121. Cole ET, Scott RA, Cade D, Conner AL, Wilding IR. 2004. In vitro and in vivo
M

pharmacoscintigraphic evaluation of ibuprofen hypromellose and gelatin capsules.

Pharm Res 21:793-798.
D

122. Watase M, Nishinari K. 1986. Thermal and rheological properties of kappa-

TE

carrageenan gels containing alkali earth metal ions. In: Phillips GO, Wedlock DJ,
Williams PA, editors. Gums and Stabilisers for the Food Industry 3, London:
EP

Elsevier. pp 185-194.

123. Grasdalen H, Smidsrød O. 1987. Gelation of gellan gum. Carbohydr Polym 7:371-
C

393.
AC

124. Turquois T, Rochas C, Taravel FR. 1992. Rheological studies of synergistic kappa
carrageenan-carob galactomannan gels. Carbohydr Polym 17:263-268.

125. El-Malah Y, Nazzal S, Bottom CB. 2007. Hard gelatin and hypromellose (HPMC)
capsules: estimation of rupture time by real-time dissolution spectroscopy. Drug
Dev Ind Pharm 33:27-34.

Page 41 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

126. Ku MS, Li W, Dulin W, Donahue F, Cade D, Benameur H, Hutchison K. 2010.

Performance qualification of a new hypromellose capsule: Part I. Comparative
evaluation of physical, mechanical and processability quality attributes of VCaps
Plus®, Quali-V® and gelatin capsules. Int J Pharm 386:30-41.

PT
127. Ku MS, Lu Q, Li W, Chen Y. 2011. Performance qualification of a new
hypromellose capsule: Part II. Disintegration and dissolution comparison between

RI
two types of hypromellose capsules. Int J Pharm 416:16-24.

128. Cadé D. Vcaps® Plus Capsules: A new HPMC capsule for optimum formulation of

SC
pharmaceutical dosage forms. http://capsugel.com/media/library/WP-
VcapsPlus_30270_FIN_10-8-12.pdf

U
129. Ogura T, Furuya Y, Matsuura S. 1998. HPMC capsules - An alternative to gelatin.
AN
Pharm Tech Eur 11:32-42.
M

130. Nagata S, Jones BE. 2000. Hard two-piece capsules and the control of drug
delivery. Eur Pharm Rev 5:41-46.
D

131. Nagata S. 2001. Cellulose capsules- an alternative to gelatin. In: Chiellini E,

TE

Sunamoto J, Migliaresi C, Ottenbrite RM, Cohn D, editors. Biomedical Polymers

and Polymer Therapeutics. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. pp.
53-62.
EP

132. Nagata S. 2002. Advantages to HPMC capsules: a new generation's hard capsules.
C

Drug Deliv Technol 2(2):35-39.

AC

133. Tuleu C, Khela MK, Evans DF, Jones BE, Nagat S, Basit AW. 2007. A
scintigraphic investigation of the disintegration behavior of capsules in fasting
subjects: a comparison of hypromellose capsules containing carrageenan as a
gelling agent and standard gelatin capsules. Eur J Pharm Sci 30:251-255.

Page 42 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

134. Jones BE, Basit AW, Tuleu C. 2012. The disintegration behaviour of capsules in
fed subjects: A comparison of hypromellose (carrageenan) capsules and standard
gelatin capsules. Int J Pharm 424:40-43.

135. Honkanen O, Seppä H, Eerikäinen S, Tuominen R, Marvola M. 2001.

PT
Bioavailability of ibuprofen from orally and rectally administered hydroxypropyl
methyl cellulose capsules compared to corresponding gelatine capsules. STP

RI
Pharma Sci 11:181-185.

136. Eith L, Stepto RFT, Tomka I, Wittwer F. 1986. The injection-moulded capsule.

SC
Drug Dev Ind Pharm 12:2113-2126.

U
137. Vilivalam VD, Illum L, Iqbal K. 2000. Starch capsules: an alternative system for
oral drug delivery. Pharm Sci Technolo Today 3:64-69.
AN
138. Stepto RFT. 1997. Thermoplastic starch and drug delivery capsules. Polymer
M

International 43:155-158.

139. Doll WJ, Sandefer EP, Page RC, Darwazeh N, Digenis GA. 1993. A scintigraphic
D

and pharmacokinetic evaluation of a novel capsule manufactured from potato starch

TE

compared with a conventional hard gelatin capsule in normal and in normal subjects
administered omeprazole. Pharm Res 10(10 Suppl.):S213.
EP

140. Tanner KE, Draper PR, Getz JJ, Burnett SW, Youngblood E. 2002. Film forming
compositions comprising modified starches and iota-carrageenan and methods for
C

manufacturing soft capsules using same. US Patent 6,340,473.

AC

141. Tanner KE, Getz JJ, Burnett SW, Youngblood E, Draper PR. 2003. Film forming
compositions comprising modified starches and iota-carrageenan and methods for
manufacturing soft capsules using same. US Patent 6,582,727.

142. http://www.roquette-pharma.com/media/deliacms/media/74/7400-475bb7.pdf

Page 43 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

143. Tanner K, Burnett S, Walker D, Beke P, Stroud N, Sundararajan M. 2005.

Apparatus for manufacturing encapsulated products. US Patent 6,884,060.

144. Brown MD. 2002. Method of encapsulation. US Patent Application 2002/0026771.

PT
145. Misic Z, Muffler K, Sydow G, Kuentz M. 2012. Novel starch-based PVA
thermoplastic capsules for hydrophilic lipid-based formulations. J Pharm Sci
101:4516-4528.

RI
146. Thoma K, Bechtold K. 1986. Enteric coated hard gelatin capsules. Capsugel Tech

SC
Bull 1-17.

147. Matthews JW, Vergilio G. 1989. Process for coating gelatin capsules. US Patent
4,816,259.
U
AN
148. Dvorácková K, Rabisková M, Gajdziok J, Vetchý D, Muselík J, Bernatoniene J,
Bajerová M, Drottnerová P. 2010. Coated capsules for drug targeting to proximal
M

and distal part of human intestine. Acta Pol Pharm 67:191-199.

D

149. Murthy KS, Kubert DA, Fawzi MB. 1988. In vitro release characteristics of hard
shell capsule products coated with aqueous- and organic-based enteric polymers. J
TE

Biomater Appl 3:52-79.

EP

150. GB Patent 1190387. 1970. Enteric coated medicaments.

151. Leiberich R, Gabler W. 1976. Gastric juice resistant gelatin capsules and a process
C

for the production thereof. US Patent 3,959,540.

AC

152. Cole ET, Scott RA, Connor AL, Wilding IR, Petereit H, Schminke C, Beckert T,
Cade D. 2002. Enteric coated HPMC capsules designed to achieve intestinal
targeting. Int J Pharm 231:83-95.

153. Okajima Y. 1979. Enteric capsules. US Patent 4,138,013.

Page 44 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

154. Hassan EM, Fatmi AA, Chidambaram N. 2016. Enteric soft capsules. US Patents
9,254,270 and 9,433,585.

155. Rao PV, Khadgapathi P. 2005. Pharmaceutical composition and a process for its
preparation. US Patent Application 20050095285.

PT
156. Cade DN, He XD. 2014. Acid resistant capsules. US Patent 8,852,631.

RI
157. He X, Cade DN. 2014. Acid resistant banding solution for acid resistant two piece
hard capsules. US Patent Application 20140360404.

SC
158. Takubo T. 2015. Acid resistant banding solution for acid resistant two piece hard
capsules. US Patent Application 20150140084.

U
AN
159. Hassan EM, Gumudavelli S. 2014. Tri-molecular complexes and their use in drug
delivery systems. US Patent Application 20140155494.
M

160. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2008/022152_stavzor_toc.cfm
(accessed October 23, 2016).
D

161. Al-Gousous J, Penning M, Langguth P. 2015. Molecular insights into shellac film
TE

coats from different aqueous shellac salt solutions and effect on disintegration of
enteric-coated soft gelatin capsules. Int J Pharm 484:283-291.
EP

162. Pina ME, Sousa AT, Brojo AP. 1996. Enteric coating of hard gelatin capsules. Part
1. Application of hydroalcoholic solutions of formaldehyde in preparation of gastro-
C

resistant capsules. Int J Pharm 133:139-148.

AC

163. Pina ME, Sousa AT, Brojo AP. 1997. Enteric coating of hard gelatin capsules. Part
2-Bioavailability of formaldehyde treated capsules. Int J Pharm 148:73-84.

164. Gullapalli RP. 2010. Soft gelatin capsules (softgels). J Pharm Sci 99:4107-4148.

165. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2013/203697_aspirin_toc.cfm

Page 45 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

166. Bowtle WJ, Barker NJ, Woodhams J. 1988. A new approach to vancomycin
formulation using filling technology for semi-solid matrix capsules. Pharm Technol
12:86-97.

167. Price JC. 2006. Polyethylene glycol. In: Rowe RC, Sheskey PJ, Owen SC, editors.

PT
Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients, 5th Ed., London: Pharmaceutical Press
and Washington DC: American Pharmacists Association. pp 545-550.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Page 46 of 46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Capsule Dosage Forms

PT
Soft Shell Hard Shell

Fills Fills

RI
• Non-aqueous solutions, • Powders, pellets, granules
suspensions, semi-solids • Non-aqueous solutions,
suspensions, semi-solids

SC
Gelatin Shell Non-gelatin shell Non-gelatin Shell Gelatin Shell
Gelatin, plasticizer, Starch/Carrageenan, HPMC, Starch, Gelatin, water
water PVA, or Starch/PVA, HPMC/Carrageenan or

U
plasticizer, water AN HPMC/Gellan, water

Modified Release (MR) Capsules

• MR coating of filled capsules
• Inclusion of MR polymer in shell before filling
• Filling of MR fill formulation in IR shells
M

Figure 1. Designs of capsule dosage forms used to encapsulate solids, liquids, and semi-solids.
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Figure 2. Possible pathways of deguanidination of arginine moieties in collagen and
M

gelatin.9
D
TE
C EP
AC

Page 1 of 1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE

Figure 3. Effect of pH of the hydrolyzing solution on the percentage of nitrogen evolved

as ammonia from collagen. (Reprinted with permission from Bogue12. Copyright
American Chemical Society)
C EP
AC

Page 1 of 1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
B

U
AN
M

C
D
TE
C EP
AC

Figure 4. Influence of (A) glycerol content and (B) relative humidity on oxygen
permeability, and of (C) glycerol content on equilibrium water content of gelatin films at
21±1°C.1,87. (Reprinted with permission from Hom et al.87. Copyright Elsevier)

Page 1 of 1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
A B

U SC
AN
M
D
TE

Figure 5. (A) Starch hard capsules produced by injection molding process and (B) Cap
and body design differences between starch and gelatin hard capsules. (Figure A is
reprinted with permission from Vilivalam et al.137. Copyright Elsevier Science and Figure
EP

B is adopted from Eith et al.136)

C
AC

Page 1 of 1