| Literature DB >> 21886911 |
Saahil Arora1, Sankalp Gupta, Raj K Narang, Ramji D Budhiraja.
Abstract
The present study has been undertaken to apply the concept of nanoparticulate mucopenetrating drug delivery system for complete eradication of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), colonised deep into the gastric mucosal lining. Most of the existing drug delivery systems have failed on account of either improper mucoadhesion or mucopenetration and no dosage form with dual activity of adhesion and penetration has been designed till date for treating H. pylori induced disorders. In the present study, novel chitosan-alginate polyelectrolyte complex (CS-ALG PEC) nanoparticles of amoxicillin have been designed and optimized for various variables such as pH and mixing ratio of polymers, concentrations of polymers, drug and surfactant, using 3(3) Box-Behnken design. Various studies like particle size, surface charge, percent drug entrapment, in-vitro mucoadhesion and in-vivo mucopenetration of nanoparticles on rat models were conducted. The optimised FITC labelled CS-ALG PEC nanoparticles have shown comparative low in-vitro mucoadhesion with respect to plain chitosan nanoparticles, but excellent mucopenetration and localization as observed with increased fluorescence in gastric mucosa continuously over 6 hours, which clinically can help in eradication of H. pylori.Entities:
Keywords: Box Behnken design; Factorial design; Helicobacter pylori; Mucopenetration; Stomach specific delivery system
Year: 2011 PMID: 21886911 PMCID: PMC3163361 DOI: 10.3797/scipharm.1011-05
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Pharm ISSN: 0036-8709
Observed responses for Box-Behnken design for CS-ALG PEC nanoparticles
| F1 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.012 | 265±16 | 41.59±3.9 | 61.5±4.6 |
| F2 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.012 | 633±23 | 57.81±3.1 | 91.6±4.0 |
| F3 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.012 | 300±19 | 35.04±2.4 | 23.5±3.1 |
| F4 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.012 | 638±27 | 41.97±2.8 | 47.5±4.3 |
| F5 | 0.02 | 0.025 | 0.000 | 268±18 | 56.75±3.7 | 24.0±2.9 |
| F6 | 0.06 | 0.025 | 0.000 | 616±24 | 61.90±4.1 | 66.4±2.4 |
| F7 | 0.02 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 321±21 | 58.15±3.9 | 33.2±3.6 |
| F8 | 0.06 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 601±23 | 60.99±2.6 | 88.0±3.5 |
| F9 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.000 | 382±17 | 57.12±3.5 | 79.6±2.8 |
| F10 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.000 | 574±25 | 53.46±3.2 | 31.8±4.1 |
| F11 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.025 | 414±22 | 46.79±3.3 | 84.9±4.3 |
| F12 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.025 | 519±29 | 54.08±4.6 | 36.0±4.5 |
| F13 | 0.04 | 0.025 | 0.012 | 600±18 | 59.22±4.2 | 52.4±2.9 |
| F14 | 0.04 | 0.025 | 0.012 | 508±18 | 59.76±2.9 | 52.0±3.8 |
| F15 | 0.04 | 0.025 | 0.012 | 594±21 | 60.06±3.6 | 52.8±4.7 |
Variables in Box–Behnken Design
|
| ||||
| Chitosan Concentration | %w/v | 0.02 | 0.040 | 0.060 |
| Drug Concentration | %w/v | 0.01 | 0.025 | 0.040 |
| Surfactant Concentration | %w/v | 0.00 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Y1 = Particle Size | nm | Y1 ≥ 600 | ||
| Y2 = Zeta Potential | mV | Y2 ≥ 35.04 | ||
| Y3 = PDE | % | Maximize | ||
Summary of Results describing Regression Analysis for responses Y1, Y2 and Y3
| Linear model | 0.0001 | 0.8362 | 0.7915 | 0.7447 | 13.46 | Suggested |
| Second order | 0.8927 | 0.8477 | 0.7334 | 0.5905 | 15.22 | |
| Quadratic model | 0.1224 | 0.9477 | 0.8534 | 0.4199 | 11.29 | |
|
| ||||||
| Linear model | 0.5116 | 0.1820 | −0.0411 | −0.6391 | 15.8 | |
| Second order | 0.8994 | 0.2367 | −0.3357 | −2.5908 | 17.9 | |
| Quadratic model | 0.0234 | 0.8688 | 0.6327 | −1.0937 | 9.38 | Suggested |
|
| ||||||
| Linear model | < 0.0001 | 0.9409 | 0.9248 | 0.8762 | 11.54 | Suggested |
| Second order | 0.8083 | 0.9473 | 0.907817 | 0.731027 | 12.78 | |
| Quadratic model | 0.7467 | 0.9579 | 0.882211 | 0.327505 | 14.45 | |
Regression equations of the fitted models
Y = b0 + b1A + b2B + b3C + b12AB + b13AC + b23BC + b11A2 + b22B2 + b33C2
Coefficients for the particle size, zeta potential and % Entrapment efficiency
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 482.64 | 16.78 | 445.72 to 519.57 | 59.68 | 2.91 | 52.21 to 67.15 | 55.01 | 1.64 | 51.40 to 58.62 |
| A-Chitosan Conc. | 166.88 | 22.97 | 116.32 to 217.43 | 3.89 | 1.78 | −0.68 to 8.47 | 18.91 | 2.24 | 13.97 to 23.85 |
| B-Drug Conc. | 42.18 | 22.97 | −8.30 to 92.73 | −2.35 | 1.78 | −6.92 to 2.23 | −22.36 | 2.24 | −27.30 to 17.42 |
| C-Surfactant Conc. | 1.88 | 22.97 | −48.68 to 52.43 | −1.15 | 1.78 | −5.73 to 3.42 | 5.04 | 2.24 | 0.10 to 9.98 |
| AB | – | – | – | −2.32 | 2.52 | −8.79 to 4.15 | – | – | – |
| AC | – | – | – | −0.58 | 2.52 | −7.05 to 5.89 | – | – | – |
| BC | – | – | – | 2.74 | 2.52 | −3.73 to 9.21 | – | – | – |
| A2 | – | – | – | −4.50 | 2.62 | −11.23 to 2.24 | – | – | – |
| B2 | – | – | – | −11.08 | 2.62 | −17.82 to −4.35 | – | – | – |
| C2 | – | – | – | 4.26 | 2.62 | −2.47 to 11.00 | – | – | – |
The range indicates the lower and upper value of coefficients at 95% confidence interval.
Fig. 1.Response surface plot showing effect of Drug and Chitosan concentration on a) Particle size (Y1), b) Zeta potential (Y2) and c) % Drug Entrapment (Y3).
Composition of Checkpoint formulations, predicted and experimental values of response variables and percentage prediction error with 95% Confidence Interval.
| 0.06:0.01:0.019 | Y1 | 600 | 638.1 | 6.35 | 516.80 to 683.10 |
| Y2 | 51.65 | 60.06 | 16.28 | 40.02 to 63.23 | |
| Y3 | 98.28 | 91.23 | −7.17 | 89.82 to 106.00 | |
|
| |||||
| 0.06:0.01:0.020 | Y1 | 600 | 601.7 | 0.28 | 516.80 to 683.10 |
| Y2 | 51.63 | 59.76 | 15.75 | 40.01 to 63.21 | |
| Y3 | 97.94 | 89.95 | −8.16 | 89.59 to 105.70 | |
|
| |||||
| 0.06:0.01:0.018 | Y1 | 599.61 | 616.4 | 2.80 | 516.10 to 682.80 |
| Y2 | 51.66 | 59.22 | 14.63 | 40.05 to 63.26 | |
| Y3 | 97.51 | 91.84 | −5.81 | 89.22 to 105.54 | |
Fig. 2.Linear correlation plots between actual and predicted values of (a) Particle size; (b) Zeta potential; (c) Percent Drug Entrapment.
Fig. 3.In vitro stability of amoxicillin in simulated gastric fluid (pH 1.2) (n = 3).
Fig. 4.SEM micrograph of amoxicillin loaded CS-ALG polyanionic nanoparticles
Fig. 5.FTIR spectra of CS-ALG PEC nanoparticles with Amoxicillin
Fig. 6.In vitro release profiles of the optimised formulation of CS–ALG PEC nanoparticles in SGF, pH 1.2
Fig. 7.In-vivo mucopenetration studies of CS-ALG PEC on Gastric mucosa (Digital microscope magnification-100X)
Fig. 8.In-vivo mucopenetration studies of CS-ALG PEC on Gastric mucosa (Fluorescent microscope magnification-40X)