| Literature DB >> 21674019 |
Abstract
Development of a novel delivery system has been attempted to deliver viable probiotic cells into the gut for a prolonged period of time while maintaining high numbers of viable cells within the formulation throughout the shelf-life of the product and during the gastrointestinal transit. Core mucoadhesive microspheres of Bacillus coagulans were developed employing several grades of hypromellose, a mucoadhesive polymer, following coacervation and phase separation technique and were subsequently enteric-coated with hypromellose phthalate. Microspheres were evaluated for percent yield; entrapment efficiency; in vitro swelling; surface morphology; particle size, size distribution, and zeta potential; flow property, mucoadhesion property by the ex vivo mucoadhesive strength test and the in vitro wash off test; in vitro release profile and release kinetic; in vivo probiotic activity; and stability. The values for the kinetic constant and regression coefficient of model-dependent approaches and the difference factor (f(1)), the similarity factor (f(2)), and the Rescigno index (ξ(1) and ξ(2)) of model independent approaches were determined for comparing in vitro dissolution profiles. Freeze dried B. coagulans cells were successfully formulated as enteric-coated mucoadhesive microspheres with satisfactory physical structure and yield. The viability of B. coagulans was maintained in the simulated gastric conditions and during processing; in simulated intestinal conditions exhibiting mucoadhesion, and controlling and extending the viable cell release following zero-order; and was satisfactorily stable at room temperature. Test results depict statistically significant effects of the hypromellose grade and their concentration on the performance and release profile of formulations.Entities:
Keywords: B. coagulans; extended-release; microspheres; mucoadhesive; probiotics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21674019 PMCID: PMC3107721 DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S14621
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Nanomedicine ISSN: 1176-9114
Formulation formula and percent yield value and entrapment efficiency value of all formulation batches
| F1 | Methocel E5 | 1:1 | 68.1 ± 3.12 | 85.36 ± 2.23 |
| F2 | Premium LV | 1:2 | 66.6 ± 3.09 | 78.41 ± 1.76 |
| F3 | 1:3 | 64.4 ± 3.18 | 72.22 ± 1.76 | |
| F4 | Methocel E15 | 1:1 | 65.3 ± 3.59 | 78.00 ± 2.31 |
| F5 | Premium LV | 1:2 | 63.4 ± 3.67 | 74.92 ± 1.91 |
| F6 | 1:3 | 62.1 ± 3.24 | 70.68 ± 1.79 | |
| F7 | Methocel K15M | 1:1 | 59.4 ± 3.17 | 73.56 ± 2.54 |
| F8 | Premium | 1:2 | 56.2 ± 3.81 | 71.74 ± 2.86 |
| F9 | 1:3 | 54.6 ± 3.46 | 67.68 ± 2.31 |
Note:
Data are presented as mean value ± SE, n = 3.
Mathematical models used to describe dissolution curves
| Zero order | Q1 = Q0 + K0t |
| First order | ln |
| Hixson–Crowell | |
| Weibull | log[ |
Notes: Where Q0 is the initial amount of drug in the pharmaceutical dosage form, Q1 is the amount of drug in the pharmaceutical dosage form at time t, W0 is initial amount of drug in the dosage form, W1 is the amount of drug released in time t, and K0 is the zero order proportionality constant, and K is the first order release rate constant, K is a constant incorporating the surface-volume relation, m is the accumulated fraction of the drug in solution at time t, α is the time scale of the process, T is the location parameter represents the lag time before the onset of the dissolution or release process, and b is the shape parameter.
Percent swelling, mean particle size, zeta potential, and percent adhesive strength values of microspheres of all formulation batches
| F1 | 1.23 ± 0.61 | 26.614 ± 1.15 | –15.86 ± 0.45 | 83.1 ± 1.23 |
| F2 | 1.28 ± 0.56 | 27.036 ± 1.34 | –15.61 ± 0.92 | 83.4 ± 1.35 |
| F3 | 1.36 ± 0.59 | 27.134 ± 1.64 | –16.01 ± 0.81 | 82.8 ± 1.37 |
| F4 | 1.10 ± 0.50 | 33.453 ± 1.58 | –16.17 ± 0.65 | 78.1 ± 1.17 |
| F5 | 1.14 ± 0.54 | 34.248 ± 1.71 | –16.06 ± 0.83 | 78.9 ± 1.24 |
| F6 | 1.19 ± 0.59 | 33.264 ± 1.39 | –15.97 ± 0.67 | 78.5 ± 1.41 |
| F7 | 0.85 ± 0.34 | 48.409 ± 2.32 | –13.67 ± 0.87 | 72.6 ± 1.36 |
| F8 | 0.87 ± 0.46 | 48.952 ± 2.24 | –13.45 ± 0.53 | 73.8 ± 1.16 |
| F9 | 0.89 ± 0.41 | 49.013 ± 2.19 | –13.28 ± 0.41 | 72.3 ± 1.14 |
Note: Data are presented as mean value ± SE, n = 3.
Figure 1.Scanning electron microscopy of microspheres of formulation batch F1.
Figure 2.Histogram of mean particle size distribution of all formulation batches.
Figure 3.Zeta potential report of uncoated microspheres from formulation batch F1.
Results of in vitro wash-off test of all formulation batches
| F1 | 62 ± 1.6 | 49 ± 2.0 | 34 ± 2.1 | 22 ± 1.9 | 16 ± 1.5 | 13 ± 1.2 | 09 ± 1.1 |
| F2 | 63 ± 1.2 | 45 ± 1.0 | 36 ± 1.4 | 24 ± 1.8 | 18 ± 1.7 | 12 ± 1.1 | 08 ± 0.8 |
| F3 | 69 ± 2.2 | 48 ± 1.1 | 32 ± 1.8 | 21 ± 1.6 | 15 ± 1.3 | 10 ± 1.5 | 07 ± 1.1 |
| F4 | 71 ± 2.1 | 58 ± 1.2 | 41 ± 1.6 | 33 ± 1.7 | 22 ± 2.0 | 15 ± 1.9 | 09 ± 1.0 |
| F5 | 72 ± 1.9 | 57 ± 2.3 | 39 ± 2.0 | 32 ± 1.5 | 24 ± 1.8 | 16 ± 1.8 | 11 ± 1.8 |
| F6 | 73 ± 2.0 | 60 ± 1.8 | 43 ± 2.2 | 35 ± 1.9 | 26 ± 2.0 | 18 ± 1.9 | 12 ± 1.7 |
| F7 | 89 ± 2.1 | 79 ± 2.1 | 62 ± 2.0 | 40 ± 1.5 | 32 ± 2.1 | 26 ± 2.0 | 16 ± 1.9 |
| F8 | 86 ± 1.8 | 76 ± 2.4 | 61 ± 2.1 | 39 ± 1.9 | 29 ± 1.9 | 18 ± 2.2 | 13 ± 1.5 |
| F9 | 85 ± 1.5 | 74 ± 2.0 | 58 ± 2.3 | 43 ± 2.1 | 30 ± 1.9 | 21 ± 1.7 | 12 ± 2.0 |
Note: Data are presented as mean value ± SE, n = 3.
Figure 4.Comparative dissolution profile (model dependent, Zero-order kinetic model) of all formulation batches.
Mean value of dissimilarity factor (f1), similarity factor (f2), and two indices of rescigno (ξ1 and ξ2)
| F1 vs F2 | 24.000 | 40.000 | 0.1212 | 0.1691 |
| F1 vs F3 | 42.397 | 27.543 | 0.2128 | 0.3154 |
| F2 vs F3 | 24.000 | 45.000 | 0.0941 | 0.2264 |
| F4 vs F5 | 21.279 | 47.073 | 0.1091 | 0.1422 |
| F4 vs F6 | 42.604 | 31.385 | 0.2401 | 0.3033 |
| F5 vs F6 | 27.089 | 45.404 | 0.1345 | 0.2362 |
| F7 vs F8 | 16.854 | 56.251 | 0.0752 | 0.2012 |
| F7 vs F9 | 38.000 | 39.000 | 0.2147 | 0.3027 |
| F8 vs F9 | 25.924 | 51.836 | 0.1418 | 0.1818 |
| F1 vs F4 | 21.316 | 41.613 | 0.0729 | 0.2126 |
| F1 vs F7 | 40.594 | 28.665 | 0.2091 | 0.2742 |
| F4 vs F7 | 24.500 | 44.421 | 0.1383 | 0.2290 |
| F2 vs F5 | 19.419 | 47.993 | 0.0607 | 0.2614 |
| F2 vs F8 | 34.406 | 36.711 | 0.1643 | 0.2751 |
| F5 vs F8 | 19.476 | 53.487 | 0.1046 | 0.1861 |
| F3 vs F6 | 24.409 | 49.132 | 0.1014 | 0.2626 |
| F3 vs F9 | 35.860 | 41.129 | 0.2110 | 0.2733 |
| F6 vs F9 | 18.000 | 63.000 | 0.1120 | 0.2117 |
Linearization of B. coagulans dissolution profile using model-dependent approach, ie, the Zero-order and the Weibull
| F1 | 5.5517 | 0.9927 | 0.92035 ± 0.354 | 72.342 ± 0.5296 | 1.2891 ± 0.1341 | 27.695 ± 0.1242 |
| F2 | 4.4534 | 0.9851 | 0.91701 ± 0.362 | 54.309 ± 0.4556 | 1.1738 ± 0.1249 | 30.059 ± 0.1148 |
| F3 | 3.7874 | 0.9892 | 0.95962 ± 0.252 | 40.209 ± 0.3018 | 1.2334 ± 0.0895 | 19.984 ± 0.0865 |
| F4 | 4.8132 | 0.9928 | 0.95497 ± 0.266 | 55.978 ± 0.3798 | 1.3332 ± 0.1024 | 20.474 ± 0.1123 |
| F5 | 3.8893 | 0.9958 | 0.97165 ± 0.211 | 43.510 ± 0.2892 | 1.3789 ± 0.0833 | 15.429 ± 0.0713 |
| F6 | 2.7205 | 0.9928 | 0.98056 ± 0.175 | 31.717 ± 0.2459 | 1.5497 ± 0.0771 | 9.3063 ± 0.0701 |
| F7 | 3.8970 | 0.9820 | 0.92602 ± 0.341 | 42.004 ± 0.3736 | 1.1026 ± 0.1102 | 29.664 ± 0.1001 |
| F8 | 3.1816 | 0.9920 | 0.94696 ± 0.289 | 35.391 ± 0.3250 | 1.1972 ± 0.1002 | 19.670 ± 0.1102 |
| F9 | 2.3708 | 0.9978 | 0.96981 ± 0.218 | 25.926 ± 0.2424 | 1.3108 ± 0.0818 | 11.980 ± 0.1018 |
Notes: Where K0 is the zero order rate constant, r2 is the regression coefficient, α is the scale parameter (time scale of the process), β is the shape parameter, and T is the location parameter. Data are presented as mean value ± SE, n = 3.