| Literature DB >> 27114707 |
Sima Singh1, Harsh Vardhan1, Niranjan G Kotla2, Balaji Maddiboyina3, Dinesh Sharma4, Thomas J Webster5.
Abstract
Transdermal drug delivery systems have made significant contributions to the medical community, but have yet to completely substitute oral or parenteral delivery. Recently, various strategies have been used to augment the transdermal delivery of therapeutics. Primarily, they include iontophoresis, electrophoresis, sonophoresis, chemical permeation enhancers, microneedles, and vesicular systems. Among these strategies, elastic liposomes appear promising. Elastic vesicle scaffolds have been developed and evaluated as novel topical and transdermal delivery systems, with an infrastructure consisting of hydrophobic and hydrophilic moieties together, and as a result, such scaffolds can accommodate drug molecules with a wide range of solubility. High deformability of these vesicles provides for better penetration of intact vesicles. This system is much more efficient at delivering low- and high-molecular-weight drugs to the skin in terms of quantity and depth. In this work, elastic liposomes of Tramadol HCl were prepared using a solvent evaporation method with different surfactants and were characterized using microscopy, and particle size, shape, drug content, ex vivo release, and zeta potential were also calculated. The prepared elastic liposomes were found to be in the range of 152.4 nm with a zeta potential of -22.4 mV; the entrapment efficiencies of the selected formulation was found to be 79.71%±0.27%. All formulations in the form of a gel were evaluated for physicochemical properties and were found to be homogeneous with no grittiness, and the pH of all formulations was found to be neutral. The optimized selected elastic liposomal formulation followed the Higuchi equation and Fickian diffusion and released the drug for a period of 24 hours. The overall results provide much promise for the continued investigation of deformable vesicles as transdermal drug carriers.Entities:
Keywords: elastic liposome; hydration-gradient; hydrogel; occlusion; skin delivery
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27114707 PMCID: PMC4833371 DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S100253
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Nanomedicine ISSN: 1176-9114
Ratio of different variables in the formulation and optimization of drug-loaded elastic liposomes
| Formulation | Variables
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drug (mg) | SPC | Hydration | Span 80 | SDC | Tween 80 | C:M | |
| F1 | 100 | 85 | 7% ethanol | 15 | – | – | 20:10 |
| F2 | 100 | 95 | 7% ethanol | 5 | – | – | 20:10 |
| F3 | 100 | 85 | 7% ethanol | – | 15 | – | 20:10 |
| F4 | 100 | 95 | 7% ethanol | – | 5 | – | 20:10 |
| F5 | 100 | 85 | 7% ethanol | – | – | 15 | 20:10 |
| F6 | 100 | 95 | 7% ethanol | – | – | 5 | 20:10 |
| F7 | 100 | 85 | PBS pH 6.4 | 15 | – | – | 20:10 |
| F8 | 100 | 95 | PBS pH 6.4 | 5 | – | – | 20:10 |
| F9 | 100 | 85 | PBS pH 6.4 | – | 15 | – | 20:10 |
| F10 | 100 | 95 | PBS pH 6.4 | – | 5 | – | 20:10 |
| F11 | 100 | 85 | PBS pH 6.4 | – | – | 15 | 20:10 |
| F12 | 100 | 95 | PBS pH 6.4 | – | – | 5 | 20:10 |
Abbreviations: SPC, soya phosphatidylcholine; SDC, sodium deoxycholate; C:M, chloroform:methanol; PBS, phosphate buffered saline.
Particle size distribution and zeta potential analyzed using the Malvern instrument
| Formulation | Size distribution (nm) | Mean intensity (%) | PDI | Zeta potential (mV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 122.6±5.6 | 67.3 | 0.18 | −40.3±2.3 |
| F2 | 139.2±4.1 | 56.7 | 0.16 | −29.4±2.5 |
| F3 | 167.3±4.8 | 100 | 0.23 | −38.1±3.1 |
| F4 | 198.4±5.2 | 89.2 | 0.20 | −26.4±1.8 |
| F5 | 219.7±7.4 | 78.4 | 0.24 | −31.8±1.3 |
| F6 | 179.3±3.1 | 92.8 | 0.18 | −21.2±2.1 |
| F7 | 152.4±3.6 | 100 | 0.25 | −35.3±1.6 |
| F8 | 374.9±8.2 | 71.3 | 0.28 | −30.3±2.9 |
| F9 | 1,084±20.5 | 100 | 0.19 | −28.1±3.1 |
| F10 | 10,695.21±32.5 | 0.0 | 0.29 | −25.2±2.6 |
| F11 | 311.7±4.6 | 71.9 | 0.19 | −32.3±2.3 |
| F12 | 455.1±6.4 | 82.3 | 0.21 | −28.7±2.5 |
Note: Average of three determinations ± SD.
Abbreviations: PDI, polydispersity index; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 1Optical microscopy of elastic liposomes (F7) at a 1,000× magnification.
Figure 2TEM micrographs of elastic liposomes (F7).
Abbreviation: TEM, transmission electron microscopy.
Calculation for % EE of Tramadol HCl in different formulations
| Formulation | Concentration | % EE |
|---|---|---|
| F1 | 50.428 | 75.64±0.85 |
| F2 | 42.142 | 63.21±0.78 |
| F3 | 37.285 | 55.92±0.09 |
| F4 | 31.714 | 47.57±0.70 |
| F5 | 26.857 | 40.28±0.56 |
| F6 | 18.142 | 27.21±0.32 |
| F7 | 53.142 | 79.71±0.27 |
| F8 | 46.857 | 70.28±0.42 |
| F9 | 40.142 | 60.21±0.34 |
| F10 | 35.142 | 52.71±0.19 |
| F11 | 19.857 | 29.78±0.12 |
| F12 | 16.714 | 25.07±0.21 |
Note:
Average of three determinations ± SD.
Abbreviations: EE, entrapment efficiency; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 3Comparison of EE of various formulations.
Abbreviation: EE, entrapment efficiency.
Composition of topical hydrogel formulations
| Components | Topical hydrogel formulations
| |
|---|---|---|
| F1 | F7 | |
| Elastic liposome | 1 mL SUVs | 1 mL SUVs |
| Carbopol 934 (%) | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| Diethyl amine (mg) | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Distilled water (mL) | 4 | 4 |
Abbreviation: SUVs, small unilamellar vesicles.
Physicochemical characteristics of topical hydrogel formulations
| Characteristics | Evaluation method | Topical hydrogel formulations
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | F7 | ||
| Homogenecity | Visual inspection | Good | Good |
| Grittiness | Optical microscopy | No | No |
| Clarity | Visual inspection | Clear | Clear |
| pH | Electric pH meter | 7.24±0.32 | 7.72±0.50 |
| Viscosity | Brookfield viscometer | 7,823.21 cps | 8,231.23 cps |
| Drug content (%) | Flask shake method | 97.23±0.61 | 96.18±0.29 |
Stability data of elastic liposomal formulation F7
| Entrapment study (%) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Days | 5°C±3°C | 25°C±2°C |
| 0 | 79.71±0.27 | 79.71±0.27 |
| 7 | 79.45±0.08 | 78.21±1.91 |
| 15 | 79.02±0.22 | 77.08±3.35 |
| 30 | 78.67±0.06 | 76.42±1.71 |
| 45 | 78.04±0.17 | 74.91±0.53 |
| 60 | 77.12±0.62 | 71.32±1.74 |
Note:
Average of three determinations ± SD.
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
Ex vivo drug release profile of formulations
| Time (min) | Percentage cumulative release | |
|---|---|---|
| Formulation F1 | Formulation F7 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 9.405±1.34 | 0.322±0.87 |
| 10 | 11.575±0.73 | 7.758±2.52 |
| 15 | 12.697±0.58 | 13.092±1.91 |
| 30 | 16.566±3.79 | 16.307±1.56 |
| 45 | 20.147±0.57 | 19.866±2.03 |
| 60 | 24.209±0.09 | 26.254±0.97 |
| 120 | 34.436±0.64 | 33.560±1.00 |
| 40 | 37.643±1.59 | 39.561±1.33 |
| 480 | 46.601±1.84 | 48.260±1.28 |
| 720 | 63.292±3.45 | 52.255±1.65 |
| 1,440 | 71.088±1.62 | 58.820±4.02 |
Note:
Average of three determinations ± SD.
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; min, minutes.
Figure 4Comparison of release profile of both (F1 and F7) formulations.
Kinetic analysis of F7 data of topical hydrogel formulations
| Kinetic models | Slope | |
|---|---|---|
| Zero order | 0.005 | 0.674 |
| First order | 0.000 | 0.261 |
| Higuchi | 0.218 | 0.891 |
| Korsmeyer–Peppas | 0.493 | 0.562 |
| Hixson–Crowell | 0.000 | 0.360 |
Note: Results are in response to a linear regression analysis.