| Literature DB >> 31269690 |
Stella Zsikó1, Kendra Cutcher2, Anita Kovács1, Mária Budai-Szűcs1, Attila Gácsi1, Gabriella Baki2, Erzsébet Csányi1, Szilvia Berkó3.
Abstract
The aim of this research was to investigate the stability of a lidocaine-loaded nanostructured lipid carrier dispersion at different temperatures, formulate a nanostructured lipid carrier gel, and test the penetration profile of lidocaine from the nanostructured lipid carrier gel using different skin penetration modeling methods. The formulations were characterized by laser diffraction, rheological measurements and microscopic examinations. Various in vitro methods were used to study drug release, diffusion and penetration. Two types of vertical Franz diffusion cells with three different membranes, including cellulose, Strat-M®, and heat separated human epidermis were used and compared to the Skin-parallel artificial membrane permeability assay (PAMPA) method. Results indicated that the nanostructured lipid carrier dispersion had to be gelified as soon as possible for proper stability. Both the Skin-PAMPA model and Strat-M® membranes correlated favorably with heat separated human epidermis in this research, with the Strat-M® membranes sharing the most similar drug permeability profile to an ex vivo human skin model. Our experimental findings suggest that even when the best available in vitro experiment is selected for modeling human skin penetration to study nanostructured lipid carrier gel systems, relevant in vitro/in vivo correlation should be made to calculate the drug release/permeation in vivo. Future investigations in this field are still needed to demonstrate the influence of membranes and equipment from other classes on other drug candidates.Entities:
Keywords: Franz diffusion; Skin-PAMPA; Strat-M® membrane; dermal drug delivery; diffusion cell; nanocarrier
Year: 2019 PMID: 31269690 PMCID: PMC6681122 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11070310
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Compositions of the test preparations.
| LID-NLC | Blank NLC | LID-NLC Gel | Blank NLC-Gel |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apifil 11.8% | Apifil 11.8% | LID-NLC 89% | Blank NLC 89% |
| Cremophor RH 60.8% | Cremophor RH 60.8% | Glycerin 8% | Glycerin 8% |
| Miglyol 812 N 5% | Miglyol 812 N 5% | Methocel E4M 3% | Methocel E4M 3% |
| Purified water 69.2% | Purified water 75.2% | ||
| Lidocaine 6% |
The experimental design of drug diffusion and penetration studies.
| Device | Hanson | Logan | Skin-PAMPA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Membrane | Cellulose acetate | Cellulose acetate | Skin-PAMPA membrane |
| Strat-M® | Strat-M® | ||
| HSE | HSE |
Particle size of nanostructured lipid carrier (NLC) dispersions stored at different conditions.
| Day | NLC Dispersion | d(0.1) µm | d(0.5) µm | d(0.9) µm | Span |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st day | Blank-NLC, room temperature | 0.066 | 0.131 | 0.320 | 1.950 |
| Blank-NLC, cooled | 0.066 | 0.130 | 0.302 | 1.821 | |
| LID-NLC, room temperature | 0.069 | 0.098 | 0.145 | 0.787 | |
| LID-NLC, cooled | 0.069 | 0.098 | 0.146 | 0.790 | |
| 2nd day | Blank-NLC, room temperature | 0.065 | 0.127 | 0.266 | 1.584 |
| Blank-NLC, cooled | 0.065 | 0.127 | 0.266 | 1.587 | |
| LID-NLC, room temperature | 0.068 | 0.097 | 0.144 | 0.782 | |
| LID-NLC, cooled | 0.073 | 0.114 | 0.259 | 1.625 | |
| 3rd day | Blank-NLC, room temperature | 0.065 | 0.126 | 0.258 | 1.542 |
| Blank-NLC, cooled | 0.065 | 0.126 | 0.262 | 1.564 | |
| LID-NLC, room temperature | 0.069 | 0.098 | 0.146 | 0.791 | |
| LID-NLC, cooled | 0.079 | 0.130 | 0.300 | 1.698 | |
| 4th day | Blank-NLC, room temperature | 0.065 | 0.128 | 0.289 | 1.746 |
| Blank-NLC, cooled | 0.065 | 0.128 | 0.298 | 1.814 | |
| LID-NLC, room temperature | 0.090 | 0.163 | 41.749 | 255.201 | |
| LID-NLC, cooled | - | - | - | - |
Figure 1The NLC dispersions’ stability over the course of three days at different storage conditions. (The magnification was 200×).
Figure 2The solid lipid particles (LID-NLC) gel in polarized light at week two. (The magnification was 100×).
Figure 3Rheological behavior of the NLC gel. (A): flow curves; (B): frequency sweep test.
The mean cumulative amount and percentage (%) diffused or penetrated at 6 and 24 h (µg/cm2).
| Time of Experiment | Cellulose | Strat-M® | HSE | Skin-PAMPA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hanson | Logan | Hanson | Logan | Hanson | Logan | ||
| 6 h (µg/cm2) | 3808.82 ± 448.91 | 3355.40 ± 320.70 | 304.20 ± 113.40 | 514.89 ± 209.69 | 1778.25 ± 483.81 | 670.85 ± 189.05 | 696.32 ± 20.50 |
| 6 h (%) | 41.35 ± 18.8 | 27.73 ± 0.83 | 3.45 ± 1.21 | 7.72 ± 2.89 | 11.61 ± 2.95 | 8.785 ± 2.03 | 13.93 ± 0.41 |
| 24 h (µg/cm2) | 8014.05 ± 471.89 | 6878.13 ± 1172.21 | 1079.27 ± 304.36 | 1847.08 ± 335.19 | 3094.60 ± 829.73 | 1222.69 ± 358.70 | - |
| 24 h (%) | 70.40 ± 13.72 | 58.66 ± 4.28 | 12.96 ± 3.52 | 27.89 ± 5.17 | 19.44 ± 5.05 | 16.00 ± 3.81 | - |
Figure 4In vitro drug diffusion and ex vivo skin penetration studies. (A): In vitro release of lidocaine through cellulose acetate membrane (24 h); (B): In vitro penetration of lidocaine through Strat-M® membrane (24 h); (C): Ex vivo penetration of lidocaine through HSE (24 h); (D): Comparison of various penetration methods with various membranes (6 h). p < 0.05 *, p < 0.01 ** and p < 0.001 *** compared to each other within each one figure.