| Literature DB >> 30248997 |
Ortensia Ilaria Parisi1,2, Mariarosa Ruffo3,4, Luca Scrivano5, Rocco Malivindi6,7, Antonio Vassallo8, Francesco Puoci9,10.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was the development of a "smart bandage" for the topical administration of diclofenac, in the treatment of localized painful and inflammatory conditions, incorporating Molecularly Imprinted Polymers (MIPs) for the controlled release of this anti-inflammatory drug. For this purpose, MIP spherical particles were synthesized by precipitation polymerization, loaded with the therapeutic agent and incorporated into the bandage surface. Batch adsorption binding studies were performed to investigate the adsorption isotherms and kinetics and the selective recognition abilities of the synthesized MIP. In vitro diffusion studies were also carried out using Franz cells and the obtained results were reported as percentage of the diffused dose, cumulative amount of diffused drug, steady-state drug flux and permeability coefficient. Moreover, the biocompatibility of the developed device was evaluated using the EPISKIN™ model. The Scatchard analysis indicated that the prepared MIP is characterized by the presence of specific binding sites for diclofenac, which are not present in the corresponding non-imprinted polymer, and the obtained results confirmed both the ability of the prepared bandage to prolong the drug release and the absence of skin irritation reactions. Therefore, these results support the potential application of the developed "smart bandage" as topical device for diclofenac sustained release.Entities:
Keywords: Diclofenac; Molecularly Imprinted Polymers (MIPs); adsorption and release kinetics; controlled release; in vitro diffusion studies; precipitation polymerization; skin irritation; smart bandage
Year: 2018 PMID: 30248997 PMCID: PMC6316117 DOI: 10.3390/ph11040092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8247
Figure 1Adsorption isotherms of (A) DC and (B) PAA on MIP and NIP.
Percentages of bound diclofenac (DC) and phenylacetic acid (PAA) by imprinted (MIP) and non-imprinted (NIP) polymers and α and ε values for different C. Data are shown as means ± S.D.
| BOUND DC (%) | BOUND PAA (%) | α DC | α PAA | ε | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIP | NIP | MIP | NIP | ||||
| 0.01 | 20.0 ± 0.8 | 10.0 ± 0.5 | 7.0 ± 0.4 | 5.6 ± 0.9 | 2.00 | 1.25 | 2.86 |
| 0.02 | 35.0 ± 0.6 | 20.0 ± 0.6 | 16.5 ± 0.7 | 12.9 ± 0.7 | 1.75 | 1.28 | 2.12 |
| 0.04 | 35.0 ± 0.3 | 17.5 ± 0.9 | 12.5 ± 0.7 | 9.5 ± 0.4 | 2.00 | 1.32 | 2.80 |
| 0.06 | 35.0 ± 0.7 | 15.0 ± 0.4 | 11.7 ± 0.8 | 9.3 ± 0.6 | 2.33 | 1.25 | 3.00 |
| 0.08 | 43.8 ± 0.4 | 12.5 ± 0.5 | 10.0 ± 0.4 | 6.9 ± 0.7 | 3.50 | 1.45 | 4.38 |
| 0.1 | 50.0 ± 0.6 | 20.0 ± 0.3 | 17.0 ± 0.7 | 14.0 ± 0.6 | 2.50 | 1.21 | 2.94 |
| 0.2 | 60.0 ± 0.6 | 25.0 ± 0.7 | 23.5 ± 0.5 | 22.0 ± 0.5 | 2.40 | 1.07 | 2.55 |
| 0.4 | 85.0 ± 0.5 | 55.0 ± 0.5 | 47.5 ± 0.6 | 44.3 ± 0.8 | 1.55 | 1.07 | 1.79 |
| 0.6 | 95.0 ± 0.8 | 66.7 ± 0.6 | 63.3 ± 0.4 | 60.0 ± 0.5 | 1.43 | 1.06 | 1.50 |
| 0.8 | 82.5 ± 0.4 | 65.0 ± 0.5 | 62.5 ± 0.8 | 60.0 ± 0.7 | 1.27 | 1.04 | 1.32 |
| 1.0 | 69.6 ± 0.7 | 56.7 ± 0.5 | 54.3 ± 0.6 | 53.5 ± 0.4 | 1.23 | 1.01 | 1.28 |
Figure 2(A) Scatchard analysis; (B) Langmuir adsorption isotherms; and (C) Freundlich adsorption isotherms.
K, Bmax and R2 values obtained by Scatchard analysis.
| POLYMER | High Affinity Sites | Low Affinity Sites | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | R2 | |||||
| 137.64 | 23.50 | 0.98 | 29.48 | 0.49 | 0.91 | |
| - | - | - | 3.05 | 2.13 | 0.84 | |
K, Qmax and R2 and K, m and R2 values obtained by Langmuir and Freundlich models, respectively.
| POLYMER | LANGMUIR MODEL | FREUNDLICH MODEL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | M | R2 | ||||
| 13.29 | 0.67 | 0.88 | 0.33 | 1.63 | 0.69 | |
| 5.72 | 0.71 | 0.92 | 0.09 | 1.74 | 0.92 | |
Figure 3(A) DC adsorption kinetic curves for MIP and NIP; (B) DC adsorption kinetics according to pseudo-first order model; and (C) pseudo-second order model.
Kinetic fitting data for MIP and NIP.
| POLYMER | PSEUDO-FIRST ORDER | PSEUDO-SECOND ORDER | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | R2 | |||||
| 0.38 | 0.02 | 0.99 | 6.30 | 0.03 | 0.90 | |
| 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.98 | 1.97 | 0.03 | 0.40 | |
Figure 4Percentage of DC diffused dose for MIP and NIP bandages.
Figure 5In vitro profiles of cumulative diffused amount Q per unit area (μg/cm2) in time of diclofenac for MIP and NIP bandages.
Permeation parameters of diclofenac for MIP and NIP bandages: steady-state flux (J) and permeability coefficient (K).
| MIP BANDAGE | NIP BANDAGE | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.0 ± 0.3 | 16.3 ± 0.6 | 7.6 ± 0.5 | 19.3 ± 0.4 |
Figure 6Effect of the developed smart bandage in EPISKIN™ RHE/L/13.
Scheme 1Schematic illustration of MIP-based bandage preparation and diclofenac release.