ArticleDrug delivery and translational research2026
Impact of solvent choice during microfluidic manufacture on the in vivo performance of liposomal doxorubicin.
Article in Drug delivery and translational research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microfluidics offers a reproducible approach to liposome manufacture; however, the impact of solvent choice on formulation performance remains underexplored. Here, we investigated whether solvent selection during microfluidic manufacturing influences liposome performance by assessing its effect on the drug release and biodistribution of liposomal doxorubicin, using rotary evaporation as a conventional method of comparison. PEGylated liposomes (DSPC:Chol:DSPE-PEG2000, 3:1:1 w/w) were prepared using a staggered herringbone microfluidic mixer, with lipids dissolved in either ethanol or Transcutol, and compared with liposomes produced by rotary evaporation and extrusion. All formulations were actively loaded with doxorubicin via an ammonium sulphate gradient, purified by tangential flow filtration, and characterised for size, polydispersity, and drug loading. The three formulations (two microfluidic (ethanol vs Transcutol) and one rotary evaporation control) were intravenously administered to Sprague-Dawley rats (1 mg/kg), and doxorubicin concentrations in plasma and tissues were quantified using LC-MS. Although solvent choice produced liposomes with broadly comparable physicochemical properties (~ 100-120 nm, PDI < 0.25, encapsulation > 90%), Transcutol-based microfluidic liposomes showed prolonged and higher concentrations of doxorubicin within the plasma and tissue samples compared with liposomes produced by ethanol microfluidics and rotary evaporation. By contrast, the manufacturing method alone (microfluidics using ethanol as the solvent versus rotary evaporation) did not significantly influence biodistribution. These findings highlight solvent selection as an important parameter in microfluidic liposome manufacture, demonstrating that matching standard critical quality attributes and in vitro release behaviour alone may be insufficient to ensure comparable in vivo performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.