| Literature DB >> 31480682 |
Fabian Ávila-Salas1, Adolfo Marican2,3, Soledad Pinochet4, Gustavo Carreño2,3, Oscar Valdés4, Bernardo Venegas5, Wendy Donoso5, Gustavo Cabrera-Barjas6, Sekar Vijayakumar7, Esteban F Durán-Lara8,9.
Abstract
This research proposes the rational modeling, synthesis and evaluation of film dressing hydrogels based on polyvinyl alcohol crosslinked with 20 different kinds of dicarboxylic acids. These formulations would allow the sustained release of simultaneous bioactive compounds including allantoin, resveratrol, dexpanthenol and caffeic acid as a multi-target therapy in wound healing. Interaction energy calculations and molecular dynamics simulation studies allowed evaluating the intermolecular affinity of the above bioactive compounds by hydrogels crosslinked with the different dicarboxylic acids. According to the computational results, the hydrogels crosslinked with succinic, aspartic, maleic and malic acids were selected as the best candidates to be synthesized and evaluated experimentally. These four crosslinked hydrogels were prepared and characterized by FTIR, mechanical properties, SEM and equilibrium swelling ratio. The sustained release of the bioactive compounds from the film dressing was investigated in vitro and in vivo. The in vitro results indicate a good release profile for all four analyzed bioactive compounds. More importantly, in vivo experiments suggest that prepared formulations could considerably accelerate the healing rate of artificial wounds in rats. The histological studies show that these formulations help to successfully reconstruct and thicken epidermis during 14 days of wound healing. Moreover, the four film dressings developed and exhibited excellent biocompatibility. In conclusion, the novel film dressings based on hydrogels rationally designed with combinatorial and sustained release therapy could have significant promise as dressing materials for skin wound healing.Entities:
Keywords: accumulative release; allantoin; crosslinking; equilibrium swelling ratio; sustained release; thermogravimetric analysis; wound healing
Year: 2019 PMID: 31480682 PMCID: PMC6781310 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11090447
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Specifications of supramolecular PDCAH and amount of BC loading.
| PDCAH | Crosslinker | Crosslinker Ratio * | Bioactive Compounds | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allantoin * | Caffeic Acid * | Resveratrol * | Dexpanthenol * | |||
| PMALEH | Male | 20 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| PAAH | AA | 20 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| PMALIH | Mali | 20 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| PSAH | SA | 20 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
(*) % w/w respect to PDCAH; Maleic acid (Male); Aspartic acid (AA); Malic acid (Mali) and succinic acid (SA).
Interaction energy values calculated using SQM methods between the hydrogel nanopores (Hnp) and the different compounds studied.
| Id. | Hydrogel Nanopores (Hnp) | HNP-AL | HNP-RES | HNP-CA | NPH-DEX | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PVAnp-Oxalic acid | −3.049 | −2.090 | −0.589 | −1.780 | −1.877 |
| 2 | PVAnp-Malonic acid | −3.083 | −2.093 | −0.876 | −1.824 | −1.969 |
| 3 | PVAnp-Succinic acid | −3.187 * | −2.172 * | −0.962 * | −1.963 * | −2.071 * |
| 4 | PVAnp-Malic acid | −3.127 * | −2.149 * | −0.986 * | −1.933 * | −2.049 * |
| 5 | PVAnp-Fumaric acid | −3.012 | −2.049 | −0.873 | −1.833 | −1.942 |
| 6 | PVAnp-Maleic acid | −3.153 * | −2.156 * | −0.950 * | −1.964 * | −2.056 * |
| 7 | PVAnp-Citraconic acid | −3.052 | −2.093 | −0.857 | −1.783 | −1.946 |
| 8 | PVAnp-Itaconic acid | −3.069 | −2.079 | −0.862 | −1.810 | −1.955 |
| 9 | PVAnp-Tartaric acid | −3.093 | −2.078 | −0.868 | −1.769 | −1.952 |
| 10 | PVAnp-Glutaric acid | −3.095 | −2.117 | −0.905 | −1.839 | −1.989 |
| 11 | PVAnp-Adipic acid | −3.089 | −2.105 | −0.868 | −1.791 | −1.963 |
| 12 | PVAnp-Pimelic acid | −3.009 | −2.012 | −0.813 | −1.720 | −1.889 |
| 13 | PVAnp-Suberic acid | −3.032 | −2.073 | −0.572 | −1.763 | −1.860 |
| 14 | PVAnp-Azelaic acid | −3.079 | −2.089 | −0.872 | −1.820 | −1.965 |
| 15 | PVAnp-Phtalic acid | −3.108 | −2.093 | −0.883 | −1.784 | −1.967 |
| 16 | PVAnp-Isophtalic acid | −3.114 | −2.136 | −0.924 | −1.858 | −2.008 |
| 17 | PVAnp-Terephtalic acid | −3.125 | −2.141 | −0.933 | −1.906 | −2.026 |
| 18 | PVAnp-2,5-pyridin acid | −3.117 | −2.079 | −0.842 | −1.858 | −1.982 |
| 19 | PVAnp-Aspartic acid | −3.130 * | −2.150 * | −0.951 * | −1.910 * | −2.035 * |
| 20 | PVAnp-Glutamic acid | −3.063 | −2.133 | −0.905 | −1.874 | −1.994 |
* Better interaction energy values (more negative).
Scheme 1Schematic representation of the synthesis of PDCAH and loading of BC.
Figure 1Proposed structures of PDCAH.
Figure 2The swelling ratio of the PDCAH at 24 °C as a function of time, pH and crosslinker nature. Data are shown as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Figure 3Release of BC from supramolecular PDCAH-BC in PBS at 33.5 °C; mean ± SEM, n = 3.
The percentage of release rate during the rapid-release phase.
| Hydrogel | Rapid-Release Phase of BC (%) until 6 h | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allantoin | Dexpanthenol | Caffeic Acid | Resveratrol | |
| PMALEH-BC | 35 ± 4.1 | 38 ± 2.0 | 52 ± 1.2 | 56 ± 2.0 |
| PAAH-BC | 35 ± 1.7 | 32 ± 3.0 | 50 ± 5.5 | 58 ± 2.6 |
| PMALIH-BC | 58 ± 2.6 | 47 ± 4.9 | 32 ± 3.0 | 38 ± 2.0 |
| PSAH-BC | 58 ± 2.6 | 46 ± 3.0 | 38 ± 2.0 | 32 ± 3.0 |
The average release rate during the rapid-release phase.
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |
| PMALEH-BC | 7.0 ± 0.82 | 1.17 ± 0.14 | 7.6 ± 0.4 | 1.27 ± 0.07 |
| PAAH-BC | 6.4 ± 0.34 | 1.07 ± 0.06 | 6.4 ± 0.6 | 1.07 ± 0.10 |
| PMALIH-BC | 9.4 ± 0.52 | 1.57 ± 0.09 | 9.4 ± 1.0 | 1.57 ± 0.16 |
| PSAH-BC | 9.2 ± 0.52 | 1.53 ± 0.09 | 9.2 ± 0.6 | 1.53 ± 0.10 |
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| |
| PMALEH-BC | 10.4 ± 0.24 | 1.73 ± 0.04 | 11.2 ± 0.4 | 1.87 ± 0.07 |
| PAAH-BC | 10.0 ± 1.1 | 1.67 ± 0.18 | 11.6 ± 0.52 | 1.93 ± 0.09 |
| PMALIH-BC | 6.4 ± 0.60 | 1.07 ± 0.10 | 7.6 ± 0.40 | 1.27 ± 0.07 |
| PSAH-BC | 7.6 ± 0.40 | 1.27 ± 0.07 | 6.4 ± 0.60 | 1.07 ± 0.10 |
The average release rate during the slow-release phase.
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |
| PMALEH-BC | 13.0 ± 0.50 | 0.11 ± 0.00 | 12.4 ± 0.40 | 0.11 ± 0.00 |
| PAAH-BC | 13.0 ± 0.58 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 13.6 ± 0.48 | 0.12 ± 0.00 |
| PMALIH-BC | 8.4 ± 0.58 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 10.6 ± 1.10 | 0.09 ± 0.01 |
| PSAH-BC | 8.4 ± 0.64 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 10.8 ± 0.80 | 0.09 ± 0.01 |
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| |
| PMALEH-BC | 9.6 ± 0.50 | 0.08 ± 0.00 | 8.8 ± 0.62 | 0.08 ± 0.01 |
| PAAH-BC | 10.0 ± 0.76 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 8.4 ± 0.70 | 0.07 ± 0.01 |
| PMALIH-BC | 13.6 ± 0.58 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 12.4 ± 0.40 | 0.11 ± 0.00 |
| PSAH-BC | 12.4 ± 0.4 | 0.11 ± 0.00 | 13.6 ± 0.88 | 0.12 ± 0.01 |
Figure 4SEM micrographics from the surface and side view of PDCAH. (a–b) PMALEH; (c–d) PAAH; (e–f) PSAH; (g–h) PMALIH.
Figure 5In vivo assessments of the film dressings for wound healing. NC: PSAH (Negative control, film dressing without BC); CP: Madecassol™ (Commercial Product); PMALEH, PSAH, PAAH and PMALIH as proposed film dressings.
Figure 6Histological images of H&E, Masson’s trichrome and GIEMSA stained sections after 14 days of wound healing for each sample from “a” to “f” respectively. Control: PDCAH (a); Commercial Product: Madecassol® (b); PMALIH-BC (c); PAAH-BC (d); PSAH-BC (e) and PMALEH-BC (f). Scale bars is 100 μm.
Figure 7Percentage of cell viability obtained from the MTT assay of the L929 fibroblast cells with respect to a negative control (without PDCAH). n = 3, * = p < 0.05 with respect to the control.