| Literature DB >> 31087188 |
Ruba Ismail1, Tamás Sovány1, Attila Gácsi1, Rita Ambrus1, Gábor Katona1, Norbert Imre2, Ildikó Csóka3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To design and stabilize Liraglutide loaded poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanoparticles (PLGA NPs) proper for oral administration.Entities:
Keywords: PLGA nanoparticles; liraglutide; oral delivery; plackett Burman design; quality by design
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31087188 PMCID: PMC6513835 DOI: 10.1007/s11095-019-2620-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharm Res ISSN: 0724-8741 Impact factor: 4.200
Levels of the Selected Critical Factors
| Critical factor | Low level | High level | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLGA amount (mg) | X1 | 30 | 60 |
| Liraglutide amount (mg) | X2 | 0.5 | 5 |
| 2nd sonication time (min) | X3 | 0.5 | 2 |
| PVA (%) | X4 | 0.5 | 2 |
| Lyoprotectant type | X5 | Mannitol | Trehalose |
| Lyoprotectant (%) | X6 | 5 | 10 |
| W2/O ratio | X7 | 2 | 5 |
The Input Factor Levels in 7 Factor, 2 Level, 8 Run PBD
| Run code | PLGA (mg) | Lira (mg) | 2nd sonication time (min) | PVA (%) | Lyoprotectant type | Lyoprotectant (%) | W2/O ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBD-F1 | 30 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 2 | Trehalose | 10 | 2 |
| PBD-F2 | 60 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | Mannitol | 10 | 5 |
| PBD-F3 | 30 | 5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | Trehalose | 5 | 5 |
| PBD-F4 | 60 | 5 | 0.5 | 2 | Mannitol | 5 | 2 |
| PBD-F5 | 30 | 0.5 | 2 | 2 | Mannitol | 5 | 5 |
| PBD-F6 | 60 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.5 | Trehalose | 5 | 2 |
| PBD-F7 | 30 | 5 | 2 | 0.5 | Mannitol | 10 | 2 |
| PBD-F8 | 60 | 5 | 2 | 2 | Trehalose | 10 | 5 |
Experimental Responses Results in PBD
| Run code | Z-AVE | PDI | EE% | Z-potential |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBD-F1 | 160.1 ± 5.6 | 0.10 ± 0.03 | 20.1 ± 1.7 | −30.6 ± 1.8 |
| PBD-F2 | 209.8 ± 8.01 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 36 ± 1.25 | −25 ± 1.6 |
| PBD-F3 | 190.0 ± 2.8 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 41 ± 2.46 | −27.3 ± 0.7 |
| PBD-F4 | 200.2 ± 3.5 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 43.5 ± 3.34 | −31.2 ± 1.2 |
| PBD-F5 | 179.5 ± 3.8 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 32 ± 4.03 | −23.8 ± 1 |
| PBD-F6 | 235.7 ± 5.3 | 0.10 ± 0.003 | 28.9 ± 2.05 | −29.2 ± 0.4 |
| PBD-F7 | 223.6 ± 3.7 | 0.17 ± 0.02 | 22.2 ± 2.12 | −30.4 ± 0. |
| PBD-F8 | 183.5 ± 3.03 | 0.20 ± 0.01 | 21 ± 1.51 | −26 ± 0.2 |
Fig. 1Pareto charts of the effects of the examined independent variables on Z-average size (Y1), PDI (Y2), EE (Y3), zeta potential (Y4). Replicate refers to number of repetitions for each formula which was 3.
Fig. 3Surface plot showing the effect of lira amount and W2/O ratio on PDI (Y2).
Fig. 2Surface plots showing the effect of the significant examined variables on the Z-average size (Y1).
Fig. 4Surface plot showing the effect of examined variables on EE (Y3).
Fig. 5Surface plot showing the effect of lira amount and W2/O ratio on zeta potential (Y3).
The Observed and the Predicted Values of the Response Values of the Center Checkpoints
Fig. 6The desirability plots and graphical design space representing the optimum levels of factors required to prepare the optimized formula.
The Observed and the Predicted Values of the response values of the Optimum Lira Nanoparticle
| Experimental response | Predicted value | Observed value | Residual | Bias (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z-average (nm) | 197.9 | 189 ± 4.99 | 8.95 | 4.5 |
| EE% | 48.3 | 51.8 ± 2.39 | 3.5 | 7.2 |
| PDI | 0.21 | 0.19 ± 0.012 | 0.034 | 7.8 |
| Zeta potential (mV) | −26.5 | −27.1 ± 1.33 | 0.58 | 2.2 |
Fig. 7SEM images of liraglutide loaded PLGA NPs.
Fig. 8Mass spectra of lira extracted from PLGA NPs compared to native lira.
Fig. 9CD spectra of lira extracted from PLGA NPs compared to native lira.