| Literature DB >> 29677103 |
Behzad Sharif Makhmal Zadeh1, Hassan Niro2, Fakher Rahim3, Golbarg Esfahani4.
Abstract
One drawback of traditional forms of medical ocular dosage is drug dilution by tear; moreover, drugs are rapidly drained away from pre-corneal cavity by tear flow and lacrimo-nasal drainage. Prolonging contact time with different strategies and mucoadhesive vehicles will help to continuously deliver drugs to the eyes. For this study, we prepared and evaluated the effects of a nanostructure lipid carrier (NLC) on propranolol hydrochloride as a hydrophilic drug model for rabbit corneal permeation. Propranolol hydrochloride NLC was prepared using cold homogenization. The lipid was melted, then the drug and surfactant were dispersed and stirred into the melted lipid. This fused lipid phase was scattered in aqueous solution containing the cosurfactant at 4 °C and then homogenized. We evaluated particle size, drug loading, drug release, and NLC permeability through rabbit cornea as well as the formula’s effect on the cornea. Our results show that drug loading efficiency depended on the surfactant/lipid ratio (S/L) and the percentages of liquid lipid and Transcutol (Gattefosse, Saint-Priest, France) (as solubilizer). Drug release data were evaluated with the Higuchi model and a significant correlation was shown between the S/L ratio and the amount of drug released after 4 and 48 h. NLC formulations improved propranolol hydrochloride permeation. We conclude that the effect of the NLC formulations was due to mucoadhesive and film forming properties.Entities:
Keywords: drug delivery; nanostructured lipid carrier; ocular; permeability; propranolol hydrochloride
Year: 2018 PMID: 29677103 PMCID: PMC6027676 DOI: 10.3390/scipharm86020016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Pharm ISSN: 0036-8709
Formulation characterizations for propranolol hydrochloride nanostructure lipid carrier (NLC) according to full-factorial design and entrapment efficiency (EE%) (all concentrations are presented as w/v % and referred to total volume of suspension).
| Formulation No. | State in Full Factorial Design | Drug% | %L (Oleic Acid%) | Transcutol% | Surfactant% | Compritol% | EE% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | +++ | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1 | 3 | 13.5 | 61.23 ± 3.12 |
| 2 | ++− | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0 | 3 | 13.5 | 58.13 ± 2.29 |
| 3 | +−+ | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 3 | 14.5 | 48.98 ± 1.72 |
| 4 | −−+ | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 14.5 | 28.53 ± 2.44 |
| 5 | −+− | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0 | 1.5 | 13.5 | 39.72 ± 3.05 |
| 6 | +−− | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 3 | 14.5 | 45.11 ± 1.52 |
| 7 | −++ | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 13.5 | 40.88 ± 2.25 |
| 8 | −−− | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 1.5 | 14.5 | 35.95 ± 1.47 |
Mean particle size and polydispersity index (PDI) for propranolol hydrochloride formulations (mean ± SD, n = 5).
| Formulation No. | State in Full Factorial Design | Particle Size (nm) | PDI |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | +++ | 385 ± 30 | 0.44 ± 0.04 |
| 2 | −++ | 491 ± 51 | 0.51 ± 0.03 |
| 3 | +−+ | 554 ± 29 | 0.29 ± 0.018 |
| 4 | +−− | 840 ± 33 | 0.38 ± 0.035 |
| 5 | −+− | 462 ± 28 | 0.5 ± 0.025 |
| 6 | −−+ | 686 ± 56 | 0.56 ± 0.011 |
| 7 | ++− | 706 ± 19 | 0.22 ± 0.02 |
| 8 | −−− | 880 ± 66 | 0.4 ± 0.03 |
Different parameters regarding drug release from lipid nanoparticles (mean ± SD, n = 3). R4% and R48%: percentage of drug releaseed after 4 and 48 h.
| Formulation No. | State in Full Factorial Design | R4 (%) | R48 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | +++ | 8.21 ± 0.37 | 23.38 ± 1.15 |
| 2 | −++ | 5.4 ± 0.59 | 27.66 ± 1.38 |
| 3 | +−+ | 8.45 ± 0.61 | 36.29 ± 1.57 |
| 4 | +−− | 20.71 ± 1.33 | 55.64 ± 4.11 |
| 5 | −+− | 10.4 ± 0.36 | 34.5 ± 3.05 |
| 6 | −−+ | 14.5 ± 0.94 | 30.6 ± 1.96 |
| 7 | ++− | 17.67 ± 1.42 | 42.2 ± 3.12 |
| 8 | −−− | 16.05 ± 0.95 | 41.17 ± 1.64 |
Figure 1Propranolol hydrochloride release profile using different formulations.
A comparison between correlation coefficient (r2) and release rate constant (k) from nanostructure lipid carriers (NLCs) in different pharmacokinetic models.
| Formulation No. | State in Full Factorial Design | Zero-Order Kinetic | First-Order Kinetic | Higuchi Model | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | +++ | 0.674 | 0.423 | 0.44 | 0.017 | 0.85 | 3.71 |
| 2 | −++ | 0.663 | 0.506 | 0.34 | 0.02 | 0.86 | 4.49 |
| 3 | +−+ | 0.776 | 0.708 | 0.39 | 0.024 | 0.92 | 6.04 |
| 4 | +−− | 0.726 | 0.92 | 0.53 | 0.013 | 0.9 | 7.95 |
| 5 | −+− | 0.88 | 0.69 | 0.51 | 0.027 | 0.96 | 5.65 |
| 6 | −−+ | 0.67 | 0.43 | 0.54 | 0.009 | 0.85 | 3.74 |
| 7 | ++− | 0.7 | 0.68 | 0.46 | 0.013 | 0.88 | 5.96 |
| 8 | −−− | 0.72 | 0.665 | 0.54 | 0.013 | 0.89 | 5.81 |
Figure 2Scanning Electron Microscopy SEM imaging for lipid nanoparticles containing propranolol hydrochloride.
Figure 3Permeated propranolol across cornea during a 5 h period (mean ± SD, n = 5).
Parameter impacts on the permeability of different formulations of propranolol hydrochloride through cornea.
| Formulation No. | State in Full Factorial Design | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | +++ | 0.7 ± 0.055 | 0.181 ± 0.012 | 0.95 ± 0.066 | 0.012 ± 0.002 |
| 2 | −++ | 0.725 ± 0.038 | 0.178 ± 0.014 | 0.85 ± 0.09 | 0.0123 ± 0.0014 |
| 3 | +−+ | 0.761 ± 0.062 | 0.185 ± 0.016 | 1.05 ± 0.095 | 0.015 ± 0.0009 |
| 4 | +−− | 1.705 ± 0.12 | 0.493 ± 0.025 | 0.95 ± 0.059 | 0.068 ± 0.001 |
| 5 | −+− | 1.220 ± 0.088 | 0.331 ± 0.014 | 0.88 ± 0.072 | 0.033 ± 0.0001 |
| 6 | −−+ | 0.625 ± 0.055 | 0.155 ± 0.009 | 0.75 ± 0.083 | 0.014 ± 0.0006 |
| 7 | ++− | 1.42 ± 0.13 | 0.417 ± 0.027 | 0.95 ± 0.047 | 0.041 ± 0.0008 |
| 8 | −−− | 0.885 ± 0.035 | 0.24 ± 0.017 | 1.10 ± 0.087 | 0.027 ± 0.0005 |
| Control | − | 0.229 ± 0.011 | 0.053 ± 0.002 | 0.85 ± 0.069 | 0.002 ± 0.00005 |
Figure 4Thermograms: (Top) cornea in buffer solution; (Middle) cornea in contact with NLC formulation; (Bottom) NLC formulation.