| Literature DB >> 31340601 |
Anroop B Nair1, Sumeet Gupta2, Bandar E Al-Dhubiab3, Shery Jacob4, Pottathil Shinu5, Jigar Shah6, Mohamed Aly Morsy3,7, Nagaraja SreeHarsha3, Mahesh Attimarad3, Katharigatta N Venugopala3,8, Sabah H Akrawi3.
Abstract
The administration of pioglitazone as an oral therapy is restricted due to various challenges. The aim of the current investigation was to evaluate the suitability of pioglitazone in adhesive transdermal patch as an alternative delivery system, in order to improve therapeutic delivery. Drug in adhesive pioglitazone (2% w/w) transdermal patch were optimized for drug release, suitable adhesive, and skin permeation enhancer. The selected patch was examined for drug-loading capacity and the patch with greater pioglitazone (6% w/w) was evaluated in rat models. The release of pioglitazone was influenced by the tested adhesive and was shown to be significantly higher (p < 0.001) with patch, prepared using Duro-Tak 87-2516. The ex vivo permeation results substantiate the release data as a greater transdermal flux (15.67 ± 2.35 µg/cm2/h) was demonstrated in patch fabricated with Duro-Tak 87-2516. Skin penetration enhancers promoted the ex vivo transdermal delivery of pioglitazone, and was ~2 folds (p < 0.0001) higher with propylene glycol, as compared to patch without enhancer. The maximum solubility of pioglitazone in Duro-Tak 87-2516 was found to be 6% w/w. Increasing the drug content in patch enhanced the transdermal flux and was highest when the pioglitazone level was 6% w/w (72.68 ± 5.76 µg/cm2/h). In vivo pharmacokinetic data demonstrate that the AUC0-α in transdermal application (13,506.51 ± 1649.92 ng·h/mL) was ~2 times higher (p < 0.0001) as compared to oral dosage form. In conclusion, the promising results observed here signifies that developed patch could be a viable alternative for oral therapy of pioglitazone.Entities:
Keywords: Duro-Tak; flux; permeation enhancer; pharmacokinetics; rat; release
Year: 2019 PMID: 31340601 PMCID: PMC6681070 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11070359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Composition of prepared patches and the drug content.
| Batch Code | Adhesive | Pioglitazone Incorporated (% | Enhancer (5% | Amount in 1 cm2 (mg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | Duro-Tak 87-4098 | 2 | - | 4.7 ± 0.2 |
| F2 | Duro-Tak 87-9301 | 2 | - | 4.8 ± 0.1 |
| F3 | Duro-Tak 87-900A | 2 | - | 4.7 ± 0.2 |
| F4 | Duro-Tak 87-4287 | 2 | - | 4.8 ± 0.1 |
| F5 | Duro-Tak 87-2516 | 2 | - | 4.7 ± 0.1 |
| F6 | Duro-Tak 87-2516 | 2 | 4.7 ± 0.1 | |
| F7 | Duro-Tak 87-2516 | 2 | Oleic acid | 4.8 ± 0.2 |
| F8 | Duro-Tak 87-2516 | 2 | Diethylene glycol monoethyl ether | 4.7 ± 0.1 |
| F9 | Duro-Tak 87-2516 | 2 | Tween 80 | 4.7 ± 0.2 |
| F10 | Duro-Tak 87-2516 | 2 | Propylene glycol | 4.8 ± 0.2 |
| F11 | Duro-Tak 87-2516 | 3 | Propylene glycol | 7.1 ± 0.3 |
| F12 | Duro-Tak 87-2516 | 4 | Propylene glycol | 9.6 ± 0.3 |
| F13 | Duro-Tak 87-2516 | 5 | Propylene glycol | 12.1 ± 0.4 |
| F14 | Duro-Tak 87-2516 | 6 | Propylene glycol | 14.5 ± 0.4 |
Figure 1Comparison of the percentage of pioglitazone released at various time intervals from DIA pioglitazone (2% w/w) patch prepared using various adhesives. All values are mean ± SD (n = 6). The profile of DIA patch prepared using Duro-Tak 87-2516 adhesive is statistically (*) different (p < 0.001) when compared to other adhesives tested.
Model fitting for drug in adhesive (DIA) pioglitazone patches with various adhesives.
| Adhesive | Factors | Model Name | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero Order | First Order | Higuchi | Korsmeyer-Peppas | Weibull Model | Hixson-Crowell | ||
| Duro-Tak 87- |
| 0.9602 | 0.9877 | 0.9729 | 0.9905 | 0.9961 | 0.9804 |
| SSR | 78.76 | 23.04 | 53.53 | 31.39 | 9.16 | 37.09 | |
| FR | 15.75 | 4.61 | 10.71 | 6.28 | 1.83 | 7.42 | |
| Duro-Tak 87- |
| 0.9539 | 0.9866 | 0.9814 | 0.9935 | 0.9984 | 0.9777 |
| SSR | 96.20 | 28.76 | 38.87 | 21.87 | 3.90 | 46.09 | |
| FR | 19.24 | 5.75 | 7.77 | 4.37 | 0.78 | 9.22 | |
| Duro-Tak 87-900A |
| 0.9823 | 0.9990 | 0.9605 | 0.9932 | 0.9981 | 0.9986 |
| SSR | 59.53 | 4.24 | 132.53 | 25.63 | 2.88 | 5.17 | |
| FR | 11.91 | 0.85 | 26.51 | 5.13 | 0.58 | 1.03 | |
| Duro-Tak 87- |
| 0.9695 | 0.9983 | 0.9657 | 0.9919 | 0.9996 | 0.9978 |
| SSR | 147.99 | 13.15 | 166.88 | 82.07 | 1.92 | 7.43 | |
| FR | 29.60 | 2.63 | 33.38 | 16.41 | 0.38 | 1.49 | |
| Duro-Tak 87- |
| 0.8788 | 0.9989 | 0.9776 | 0.9648 | 0.9996 | 0.9834 |
| SSR | 906.27 | 4.12 | 167.80 | 331.91 | 1.04 | 144.05 | |
| FR | 181.25 | 0.82 | 33.56 | 66.38 | 0.21 | 28.81 | |
r2: Correlation coefficient; SSR: Sum of square of residuals; FR: Fischer ratio.
Figure 2Amount of drug permeated across the rat skin membrane at different time intervals from various acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive pioglitazone (2% w/w) patches. All values are mean ± SD (n = 6). The profile of DIA patch prepared using Duro-Tak 87-2516 adhesive is statistically (*) different (p < 0.05) when compared to other adhesives tested.
Ex vivo permeation parameters observed in various treatments.
| Batch Code | Lag Time (h) | Flux (µg/cm2/h) | Cumulative Amount Permeated (12 h) (µg/cm2) | Permeability Coefficient (cm/h × 10−4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 0.18 ± 0.06 | 6.90 ± 1.55 | 74.83 ± 12.66 | 3.12 ± 0.94 |
| F2 | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 7.54 ± 2.92 | 82.25 ± 29.20 | 3.43 ± 1.18 |
| F3 | 0.17 ± 0.06 | 8.78 ± 3.14 | 92.12 ± 23.96 | 3.84 ± 1.05 |
| F4 | 0.14 ± 0.04 | 11.42 ± 3.64 | 129.02 ± 20.42 | 5.38 ± 1.47 |
| F5 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 15.67 ± 2.35 | 174.24 ± 39.61 | 7.26 ± 1.24 |
| F6 | 0.10 ± 0.04 | 18.27 ± 3.71 | 216.91 ± 38.94 | 9.04 ± 1.32 |
| F7 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 21.32 ± 3.86 | 249.86 ± 24.74 | 10.41 ± 1.81 |
| F8 | 0.08 ± 0.03 | 22.95 ± 3.91 | 267.69 ± 32.45 | 11.12 ± 1.73 |
| F9 | 0.07 ± 0.02 | 26.66 ± 4.18 | 313.01 ± 22.23 | 13.04 ± 1.90 |
| F10 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 32.59 ± 4.37 | 387.90 ± 33.08 | 15.16 ± 1.15 |
| F11 | 0.06 ± 0.03 | 43.86 ± 4.92 | 526.28 ± 65.21 | 14.61 ± 1.95 |
| F12 | 0.05 ± 0.02 | 53.66 ± 4.87 | 643.89 ± 68.17 | 14.97 ± 1.41 |
| F13 | 0.05 ± 0.03 | 64.74 ± 5.83 | 776.86 ± 52.94 | 14.56 ± 2.95 |
| F14 | 0.05 ± 0.02 | 72.68 ± 5.67 | 872.14 ± 67.36 | 14.91 ± 2.11 |
Figure 3Amount of drug permeated across the rat skin membrane at different time intervals from Duro-Tak 87-2516 pioglitazone (2% w/w) patch with various skin permeation enhancers. All values are mean ± SD (n = 6). The profile of DIA patch with propylene glycol is statistically (*) different (p < 0.05) when compared to other enhancers tested.
Figure 4Representative scanning electron microscopy image of drug in adhesive pioglitazone (6% w/w) patch with propylene glycol.
Figure 5Amount of drug permeated across the rat skin membrane from Duro-Tak 87-2516 pioglitazone patch with propylene glycol at different drug level (2–6% w/w). All values are mean ± SD (n = 6).
Figure 6Plasma profiles of pioglitazone from transdermal Duro-Tak 87-2516 pioglitazone (6% w/w) patch with propylene glycol and oral administration (4 mg/kg). All values are mean ± SD (n = 6).
Pharmacokinetic parameters of pioglitazone in plasma following transdermal and oral administration in rats. Tmax, time of maximum concentration; Cmax indicates maximum concentration; AUC0–α, area under the plasma concentration-time curve.
| Parameter | Transdermal | Oral Suspension |
|---|---|---|
| Tmax (h) | 4 | 1 |
| Cmax (ng/mL) | 711.83 ± 210.06 | 842.30 ± 226.01 |
| AUC0–α (ng.h/mL) | 13,506.51 ± 1649.92 * | 6082.56 ± 1384.08 |
Data expressed as average ± SD (n = 6) and * p < 0.0001 were considered as significant.