| Literature DB >> 25317184 |
Behzad Sharif Makhmalzadeh1, Shiva Torabi1, Armita Azarpanah1.
Abstract
The topical delivery of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) such as Ibuprofen has been explored as a potential method of avoiding the first pass effects and the gastric irritation, which may occur when used orally. Ibuprofen is formulated into many topical preparations to reduce the adverse effects and simultaneously avoid the hepatic first-pass metabolism as well. However, it is difficult to obtain an effective concentration through topical delivery of Ibuprofen due to its low skin permeability. The aim of this study was to develop two types of nanoemulsions formulations and focused on the screening of Ibuprofen-loaded nanoemulsions and evaluating the influence of these types of nanoemulsions on the skin permeability of the drug. In both nanoemulsion formulations, oil was similar, but the surfactant and co-surfactant were different. The effect of independent variables on skin permeability parameters was evaluated using full factorial design. Results demonstrate that novel formulations were more effective as skin enhancer than traditional formulation. In case of the novel formulation, any increase in percentage of surfactant and co-surfactant had increasing effect on flux (Jss). On the other hand, the proportion of surfactant/co-surfactant (S/C) demonstrated reverse correlation with Jss. While, in traditional formulations, direct correlation was found between both variables, and Jss. Comparison between two types of nanoemulsion formulations revealed that, novel formulations were more effective as topical Ibuprofen carrier in contrast to traditional type due to lower amounts of surfactant and co-surfactant and less irritating effect.Entities:
Keywords: Ibuprofen; NSAID; Nanoemulsion; Permeability; Topical preparations.
Year: 2012 PMID: 25317184 PMCID: PMC3876571
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Different components of novel and traditional formulations.
| Formulation | Surfactant | Co-surfactant | Oily phase |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Span20, Tween 80 (1:1 mass ratio) | PEG400 | Isopropyl myristate |
|
| L.A.S | Labrasol | Isopropyl myristate |
Presentation of independent variables and levels in novel and traditional formulations
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| S/C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| S + C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| W% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demonstration of Ibuprofen solubility at different oil: surfactant: co-surfactant mixtures (ratio 1 : 1 : 1).
| Oil | Solubility (g/mL) |
|---|---|
|
| 0.196 ± 0.029 |
|
| 0.138 ± 0.019 |
|
| 0.112 ± 0.014 |
|
| 0.176 ± 0.025 |
|
| 0.155 ± 0.017 |
|
| 0.124 ± 0.010 |
Figure 1The pseudo-ternary phase diagrams of S/C system at the 1 : 1, 1 : 2 and 1 : 3 weight ratios for traditional formulations at 25°C.
Figure 2The pseudo-ternary phase diagrams of S/C system at the 1 : 1, 1 : 2 and 1 : 3 weight ratios for novel formulations at 25°C.
Characterization of traditional and novel formulations (mean ± SD, n = 3). Similar experiments were performed for novel formulations. The results illustrate that in novel preparations, both S/C and percentage of surfactant and co-surfactant parameters affect mean particle size, although this relation is not completely significant (p = 0.135 and p = 0.085, respectively).
| Polydispersity index | Mean particle size(nm) | Viscosity (cps) | Formulation No. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Novel | Traditional | Novel | Traditional | Novel | Traditional | |
|
| 0.3 ± 0.01 | 19 ± 0.5 | 30 ± 1.4 | 50 ± 1.7 | 60 ± 3.1 | 1 |
|
| 0.25 ± 0.009 | 13 ± 0.7 | 30 ± 1.3 | 48 ± 2.3 | 56 ± 2.3 | 2 |
|
| 0.31 ± 0.013 | 25 ± 0.9 | 37 ± 1.0 | 42 ± 1.5 | 45 ± 1.6 | 3 |
|
| 0.28 ± 0.012 | 20 ± 0.8 | 35 ± 1.4 | 43 ± 1.2 | 41 ± 1.1 | 4 |
|
| 0.19 ± 0.014 | 10 ± 0.4 | 22 ± 0.7 | 47 ± 2.0 | 57 ± 2.2 | 5 |
|
| 0.2 ± 0.008 | 18 ± 0.6 | 23 ± 1.1 | 40 ± 1.8 | 40 ± 2.3 | 6 |
|
| 0.22 ± 0.007 | 15 ± 0.3 | 19 ± 0.4 | 41 ± 1.6 | 53 ± 2.8 | 7 |
|
| 0.22 ± 0.011 | 16 ± 0.2 | 25 ± 0.9 | 38 ± 1.4 | 44 ± 1.9 | 8 |
Presentation of different parameters interfering with Ibuprofen permeation through rat skin for traditional formulations (mean ± SD, n = 3).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 83.5 | 128 | 0.0069 | 2.6 | - |
|
| 137 | 2.75 | 0.012 | 1.86 | +++ |
|
| 133 | 2.66 | 0.01 | 1.97 | ++- |
|
| 120 | 2.4 | 0.0066 | 2.39 | +-- |
|
| 123 | 2.46 | 0.0097 | 2.27 | +-+ |
|
| 118 | 2.36 | 0.0076 | 2.32 | -++ |
|
| 112 | 2.24 | 0.0097 | 2.44 | --+ |
|
| 115 | 2.3 | 0.011 | 2.35 | -+- |
|
| 107 | 2.14 | 0.0064 | 2.4 | --- |
Presentation of different parameters interfering with Ibuprofen permeation through rat skin for novel formulations (mean ± SD, n = 3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2.76 ± 0.185 | 0.0075 ± 0.0007 | 135 ± 6 7.5 | 78.3 ± 6.54 | Control |
|
| 1.35 ± 0.14 | 0.0123 ± 0.001 | 3.02 ± 0.27 | 151 ± 12.8 | 1 |
|
| 1.27 ± 0.09 | 0.015 ± 0.0009 | 3.38 ± 0.2 | 169 ± 10.3 | 2 |
|
| 1.33 ± 0.12 | 0.012 ± 0.0013 | 2.95 ± 0.28 | 147 ± 14.5 | 3 |
|
| 1.66 ± 0.11 | 0.0101 ± 0.0008 | 2.85 ± 0.17 | 144 ± 7.6 | 4 |
|
| 0.97 ± 0.066 | 0.025 ± 0.0017 | 3.5 ± 0.33 | 175 ± 15.8 | 5 |
|
| 1.18 ± 0.006 | 0.017 ± 0.001 | 3.4 ± 0.36 | 170 ± 18.11 | 6 |
|
| 1.05 ± 0.008 | 0.0186 ± 0.0015 | 3.9 ± 0.33 | 195 ± 16.6 | 7 |
|
| 1.2 ± 0.075 | 0.02 ± 0.0016 | 3.65 ± 0.35 | 180 ± 16.1 | 8 |
Properties of central composite formulations accompanied by Jss and Tlag in traditional preparation.
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 2 | 55 | 138.8 | 2.4 | 117 | 2.34 | |
|
| 2 | 65 | 122 | 2.3 | 120.9 | 2.24 | |
Central composite characterizations for novel formulations.
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2 | 60 | 15 | 119 | 1.22 | 116 | 1.14 |
|
| 2 | 70 | 15 | 190 | 1.12 | 193 | 1.05 |