ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2026
Physicochemical Characterization and In Vitro Evaluation of Novel Liposomal and Proliposomal Doxorubicin Formulations in Accordance with FDA Guidance.
Article in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Engineering Advanced Nanomedicine Against Depression: From Treatment Challenges to Delivery Strategies.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Doxorubicin (Dox) is a widely used chemotherapeutic agent, but its clinical application is limited by severe dose-dependent toxicities, particularly cardiotoxicity. To overcome these challenges, two novel formulations-liposomal doxorubicin (Dox-Lip) and proliposomal doxorubicin (Dox-P-Lip) -were developed and systematically compared with the reference listed drug (RLD), focusing on physicochemical comparability and in vitro bioequivalence in accordance with FDA guidance. Dox-Lip was prepared using alternative lipid compositions and a modified pH gradient-based active loading method, while Dox-P-Lip was obtained by lyophilization of the liposomal formulation. Characterization studies included encapsulation efficiency (EE%), lipid content, drug-to-lipid ratio, internal pH, morphology, bilayer phase behavior, PEG surface density, particle size, zeta potential, and PEG layer thickness determined using the Fixed Aqueous Layer Thickness (FALT) model. In vitro drug release was evaluated under simulated plasma, variable pH and temperature, and ultrasound exposure. Both formulations exhibited high encapsulation efficiencies (EE%) exceeding 90%, comparable to those of the RLD. Moreover, these formulations demonstrated approximately 2.1-fold thicker PEG layers, indicating improved steric stabilization. Although these formulations exhibited slightly higher leakage under stress conditions, the encapsulation efficiency (EE%) consistently remained above 90%, confirming their structural integrity. Overall, the novel formulations demonstrated physicochemical similarity and stability relative to the RLD, supporting their potential as bioequivalent and clinically viable liposomal Dox alternatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41673384What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.