| Literature DB >> 30355980 |
Cristina Padula1, Silvia Pescina2, Sara Nicoli3, Patrizia Santi4.
Abstract
Buccal mucosa has recently received much attention as a potential route for systemic delivery of drugs, including biologics and vaccines. The aim of this work was to gain insight into the mechanism of fatty acids as buccal permeation enhancers, by studying the effect of a series of medium and long chain fatty acids on the permeation of a model high molecular weight and hydrophilic molecule, fluorescein isothiocyanate labelled dextran (FD-4, m.w. 4 kDa) across porcine esophageal epithelium. A parabolic relationship between fatty acid lipophilicity and enhancement was obtained, regardless of the presence and number of double bonds. The relationship, which resembles the well-known relationship between permeability and lipophilicity of transdermal delivery, presents a maximum value in correspondence of C10 (logP approx. 4). This is probably the ideal lipophilicity for the fatty acid to interact with the lipid domains of the mucosa. When the same analysis was performed on skin data, the same trend was observed, although the maximum value was reached for C12 (logP approx. 5), in agreement with the higher lipophilicity of the skin. The results obtained in the present work represent a significant advancement in the understanding of the mechanisms of action of fatty acids as buccal penetration enhancers.Entities:
Keywords: buccal mucosa; dextran; fatty acids; lipophilicity; penetration enhancers; structure-activity relationship
Year: 2018 PMID: 30355980 PMCID: PMC6321376 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics10040201
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Characteristics of the selected fatty acids.
| C:D * | Common Name | IUPAC Name | Formula | m.w. | LogP [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6:0 | Caproic acid | Hexanoic acid | C6H12O2 | 116.16 | 1.92 |
| 8:0 | Caprylic acid | Octanoic acid | C8H16O2 | 144.21 | 3.05 |
| 10:0 | Capric acid | Decanoic acid | C10H20O2 | 172.27 | 4.09 |
| 12:0 | Lauric acid | Dodecanoic acid | C12H24O2 | 200.32 | 4.60 |
| 18:0 | Stearic acid | Octadecanoic acid | C18H36O2 | 284.48 | 8.23 |
| 18:1 | Oleic acid | (9 | C18H34O2 | 282.46 | 7.64 |
| 18:2 | Linoleic acid | (9 | C18H32O2 | 280.45 | 7.05 |
| 18:3 | Linolenic acid | (9 | C18H30O2 | 278.43 | 6.46 |
* Number of atoms of carbon (C) and number of double bonds (D) present in the molecule.
Figure 1Effect of fatty acid concentration (capric acid, panel (a); stearic acid, panel (b)) on the permeation of FD-4 across pig esophageal epithelium, compared to the control (ethanol pretreatment). Mean values ± SEM.
Effect of type and concentration of fatty acid on the permeation parameters of FD-4 across pig esophageal epithelium (mean values ± SEM).
| Enhancer Type and Concentration | FD-4 Permeation Parameters | Significativity of Differences | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | mM | mg/cm2 | J (µg/cm2h) | P × 104 (cm/h) | EF | ||
| Passive | - |
|
| 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.49 ± 0.15 | - | - |
| Control | - | - | - | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.40 ± 0.04 | 0.8 | - |
| Caproic (C6) | 1 | 86 | 0.33 | 0.16 ± 0.06 | 0.79 ± 0.28 | 1.4 | not significant |
| 5 | 430 | 1.67 | 0.11 ± 0.02 | 0.56 ± 0.11 | 1.0 | ||
| 10 | 860 | 3.33 | 0.13 ± 0.04 | 0.64 ± 0.18 | 1.2 | ||
| Caprylic (C8) | 1 | 69 | 0.33 | 0.13 ± 0.04 | 0.63 ± 0.22 | 1.1 | |
| 5 | 345 | 1.67 | 0.05 ± 0.02 | 0.26 ± 0.09 | 0.5 | ||
| 10 | 690 | 3.33 | 1.67 ± 0.20 | 8.36 ± 1.02 (d) | 15.1 | ||
| Capric (C10) | 1 | 58 | 0.33 | 6.73 ± 1.21 | 33.66 ± 6.03 | 61.0 | |
| 5 | 290 | 1.67 | 11.39 ± 3.72 | 56.96 ± 18.59 (b) | 103.2 | ||
| 10 | 580 | 3.33 | 16.31 ± 1.38 | 81.54 ± 6.92 (d) | 147.7 | ||
| Lauric (C12) | 1 | 50 | 0.33 | 0.30 ± 0.06 | 1.51 ± 0.32 | 2.7 | |
| 5 | 250 | 1.67 | 11.45 ± 1.81 | 57.21 ± 9.05 (d) | 103.8 | ||
| 10 | 500 | 3.33 | 10.35 ± 0.82 | 51.73 ± 4.09 (d) | 93.7 | ||
| Stearic (C18:0) | 1 | 35 | 0.33 | 0.04 ± 0.04 | 0.58 ± 0.19 | 1.0 | not significant |
| 5 | 175 | 1.67 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 0.43 ± 0.10 | 0.8 | ||
| 10 | 350 | 3.33 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.45 ± 0.13 | 0.8 | ||
| Oleic (C18:1) | 1 | 35 | 0.33 | 0.09 ± 0.04 | 0.47 ± 0.19 | 0.9 | |
| 5 | 175 | 1.67 | 0.45 ± 0.13 | 2.77 ± 0.53 (c) | 4.1 | ||
| 10 | 350 | 3.33 | 0.07 ± 0.005 | 0.37 ± 0.02 | 0.7 | ||
| Linoleic (C18:2) | 0.5 | 18 | 0.17 | 1.76 ± 0.64 | 8.79 ± 1.31 (c) | 15.9 | |
| 1 | 36 | 0.33 | 1.14 ± 0.57 | 5.71 ± 2.85 (a) | 10.3 | ||
| 5 | 178 | 1.67 | 0.33 ± 0.13 | 1.64 ± 0.67 | 3.0 | ||
| 10 | 356 | 3.33 | 0.43 ± 0.06 | 2.14 ± 0.32 | 3.9 | ||
| Linolenic (C18:3) | 1 | 36 | 0.33 | 0.47 ± 0.14 | 2.35 ± 0.68 | 4.3 | |
| 5 | 180 | 1.67 | 1.40 ± 0.26 | 6.99 ± 1.28 (a) | 12.7 | ||
| 10 | 360 | 3.33 | 1.92 ± 0.26 | 9.60 ± 1.29 (d) | 17.4 | ||
| 15 | 540 | 5.00 | 2.87 ± 0.51 | 14.37 ± 2.53 (d) | 26.0 | ||
Difference with respect to passive: (a) p < 0.05; (b) p < 0.01; (c) p < 0.001; (d) p < 0.0001.
Figure 2Effect of fatty acid concentration (Panel (a) saturated; Panel (b) C18 saturated and unsaturated) on the permeation of FD-4 across pig esophageal epithelium. Mean values ± SEM.
Figure 3Panel (a) effect of fatty acid chain length (applied as pre-treatment at 10%) on FD-4 flux across pig esophageal epithelium. * significantly different among them and compared to the others. Panel (b) effect of the number of double bonds of C18 fatty acids (applied as pre-treatment at 10%) on FD-4 permeation across pig esophageal epithelium. * significantly different from the others. Mean values ± SEM.
Figure 4Relationship between fatty acid logP and enhancement factor obtained. Panel (a) refers to the present work: empty symbols refer to 5% and full symbols to 10% fatty acid concentration in the pre-treatment solution. Panel (b) reports data on naloxone permeation across human skin in the presence of 10% of fatty acids dissolved in propylene glycol [33].