| Literature DB >> 26497653 |
Usha Ganganahalli Kapanigowda1, Sree Harsha Nagaraja2, Balakeshwa Ramaiah3, Prakash Rao Boggarapu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The poor ocular bioavailability of the conventional eye drops is due to lack of corneal permeability, nasolacrimal drainage and metabolic degradation. To overcome this issue, drug encapsulated in mucoadhesive polymer based ocular microspheres have the advantages of improved drug stability, easy administration in liquid form, diffuse rapidly and better ocular tissue internalization.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26497653 PMCID: PMC4620023 DOI: 10.1186/s40199-015-0132-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Daru ISSN: 1560-8115 Impact factor: 3.117
Variable factors with their levels used for optimization of GCM
| Variable factors | Level | Optimized level | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1.41 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 1.41 | ||
| Chitosan concentration (mg) | 79.55 | 250 | 500 | 750 | 920.45 | 750 |
| Stirring speed (rpm) | 318 | 1000 | 2000 | 3000 | 3682 | 3000 |
| Span 80 volume (mL) | 0.20 | 0.40 | 0.70 | 1.0 | 1.20 | 1.00 |
Response factors with expected and observed values for optimized GCM
| Response factors | Expected value | Observed value | Residual value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Encapsulation efficiency (%) | 81.4 | 80.00 | −1.4 |
| 12th hour | 77.27 | 78.00 | 0.73 |
Fig. 1Cumulative amount of drug released ( ) GCM and ( ) ganciclovir solution (bars represent mean ± SD; n = 3)
Fig. 2In vitro release profile of the optimized GCM-curve fitting models (bars represent mean ± SD; n = 3)
Stability test observations of the optimized GCM at room temperature
| Storage | Encapsulation efficiency (%) | Mean Particle size (μm) | Physical change | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Months | Months | Months | |||||||||||||
| 25 ± 2 °C | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 |
| 80.79 | 79.92 | 79.15 | 78.57 | 77.39 | 20.28 | 20.15 | 20.20 | 20.35 | 20.40 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | |
--: No physical change
Stability test observations of the optimized GCM at refrigeration conditions
| Storage | Encapsulation efficiency (%) | Mean particle size (μm) | Physical change | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Months | Months | Months | ||||||||||
| 5 ± 3 °C | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| 80.79 | 80.62 | 79.89 | 79.00 | 20.28 | 20.19 | 20.24 | 20.30 | -- | -- | -- | -- | |
--: No physical change
Fig. 3XRD of (a) ganciclovir; (b) chitosan; (c) optimized GCM
Fig. 4Aqueous humour concentration of ganciclovir after instillation of 1 % w/v of ( ) GCM and ( ) ganciclovir solution (bars represent mean ± SD; n = 3)
Aqueous humor pharmacokinetics parameters after ocular instillation of GCM (1 % w/v) and ganciclovir solution (1 % w/v) in Wistar rat
| Parameters | Units | GCM | Ganciclovir solution |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ka | h−1 | 0.7252 | 1.2981 | 0.0021 |
| Ke | h−1 | 0.1233 | 0.1662 | 0.6270 |
| Tmax | h | 3.0 | 2.0 | ---- |
| Cmax | μgmL−1 | 51.23 | 18.98 | <0.0001 |
| Relative bioavailabilitya | unitless | 4.991 | 1.000 | ---- |
| t1/2 | h | 5.7654 | 3.5426 | 0.0636 |
| AUC0-24 | hμgmL−1 | 607.187 | 121.634 | <0.0001 |
| AUC0-∞ | hμgmL−1 | 645.116 | 137.692 | <0.0001 |
aRelative bioavailability = (AUCGCM × Doseganciclovir solution)/(AUCganciclovir solution × DoseGCM)
The estimated pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices after ocular instillation of GCM (1 % w/v) and ganciclovir solution (1 % w/v) in Wistar rat
| PK/PD indices | Units | GCM | Ganciclovir solution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cmax/MIC90 | unitless | 41.991 | 15.560 |
| AUC0−24/MIC90 | h | 497.694 | 99.700 |
| AUC0−24 above MIC90 | hμgmL−1 | 573.518 | 106.239 |
|
| h | 28.1 | 12.8 |
Fig. 5Simulated ocular concentration time-profile of ganciclovir for 75 h at a dosing interval of 28.1 h for GCM and 12.3 h for ganciclovir solution
Fig. 6Photomicrographs of histological slides of rat retina (a) GCM and (b) ganciclovir solution