| Literature DB >> 31717352 |
Chang-Baek Lim1, Sharif Md Abuzar2,3, Pankaj Ranjan Karn2,3, Wonkyung Cho2,3, Hee Jun Park4, Cheong-Weon Cho1, Sung-Joo Hwang2,3.
Abstract
Here, we aimed to prepare and optimize liposomal amphotericin B (AmB) while using the supercritical fluid of carbon dioxide (SCF-CO2) method and investigate the characteristics and pharmacokinetics of the SCF-CO2-processed liposomal AmB. Liposomes containing phospholipids, ascorbic acid (vit C), and cholesterol were prepared by the SCF-CO2 method at an optimized pressure and temperature; conventional liposomes were also prepared using the thin film hydration method and then compared with the SCF-CO2-processed-liposomes. The optimized formulation was evaluated by in vitro hemolysis tests on rat erythrocytes and in vivo pharmacokinetics after intravenous administration to Sprague-Dawley rats and compared with a marketed AmB micellar formulation, Fungizone®, and a liposomal formulation, AmBisome®. The results of the characterization studies demonstrated that the SCF-CO2-processed-liposomes were spherical particles with an average particle size of 137 nm (after homogenization) and drug encapsulation efficiency (EE) was about 90%. After freeze-drying, mean particle size, EE, and zeta potential were not significantly changed. The stability study of the liposomes showed that liposomal AmB that was prepared by the SCF method was stable over time. In vivo pharmacokinetics revealed that the SCF-CO2-processed-liposomes were bioequivalent to AmBisome®; the hemolytic test depicted less hematotoxicity than Fungizone®. Therefore, this method could serve as a potential alternative for preparing liposomal AmB for industrial applications.Entities:
Keywords: AmBisome®; Amphotericin B; hemolysis; liposomes; pharmacokinetic; supercritical fluid
Year: 2019 PMID: 31717352 PMCID: PMC6921013 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11110589
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Figure 1Schematic representation of the experimental apparatus for liposome preparation by the SCF-CO2 method.
Figure 2The solubility of amphotericin B (AmB) in different organic solvents at 65 °C. dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), N,N-dimethylacetamide (DMA), N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF), and an equivolume solution of MeOH + CHCl3.
Figure 3AmB remaining (%) in different organic solvent systems.
The pseudo-first-order rate constants (k) and half-life (t1/2) values of AmB in different organic solvent systems.
| Organic Solvent Systems | R2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| DMSO | 0.1244 | 5.57 | 0.888 |
| DMSO-vit C | 0.0594 | 11.66 | 0.746 |
| DMSO-HCl | 5.5074 | 0.13 | 0.874 |
| DMA-vit C | 0.2808 | 2.47 | 0.986 |
| DMA-HCl | 2.4844 | 0.28 | 0.97 |
| DMF-vit C | 0.2949 | 2.35 | 0.891 |
| DMF-HCl | 15.5025 | 0.04 | 0.981 |
| MeOH + CHCl3-vit C | Not Done | Not Done | Not Done |
| MeOH + CHCl3-HCl | 2.2989 | 0.30 | 0.953 |
Effect of organic solvent on liposomal AmB prepared by the supercritical fluid of carbon dioxide (SCF-CO2) method.
| Organic Solvents | Size (nm) | PDI | EE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| DMSO | 771 ± 89 | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 81.2 ± 2.2 |
| DMSO-vit C | 833 ± 78 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | 82.0 ± 1.9 |
| DMA-vit C | 849 ± 108 | 0.21 ± 0.02 | 91.5 ± 2.3 |
| DMF-vit C | 1109 ± 112 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 90.2 ± 3.0 |
| MeOH + CHCl3-HCl | 692 ± 62 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 35.8 ± 5.2 |
Effects of pressure and temperature on the SCF-CO2 process of liposomal AmB.
| Temp. (°C) | Pressure (MPa) | Mean Diameter (nm) | PDI a | EE (%) b |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 35 | 20 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 45 | 10 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 45 | 15 | 761.0 ± 56.5 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 91.7 ± 4.2 |
| 45 | 20 | 949.3 ± 84.4 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 90.5 ± 5.7 |
| 45 | 25 | 855.7 ± 76.2 | 0.25 ± 0.02 | 84.2 ± 2.9 |
| 45 | 30 | 821.3 ± 69.2 | 0.27 ± 0.01 | 79.7 ± 5.5 |
| 55 | 20 | 801.6 ± 74.9 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 86.3 ± 4.5 |
| 65 | 20 | 839.1 ± 81.7 | 0.18 ± 0.01 | 77.1 ± 4.2 |
Note: Values denote the mean ± standard deviations of four separate sets of experiments. N/A denotes not applicable, i.e., liposomes were not formed. a Polydispersity index, b Encapsulation efficiency.
Figure 4Encapsulation efficiency of liposomal AmB prepared by the SCF-CO2 and conventional methods.
Figure 5Small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) curves of liposomal AmB prepared by the SCF-CO2 and conventional method liposomes.
Figure 6Morphology of the AmB-liposomes. (A) Freeze fracture electron micrographs; negative-stain transmission electron micrographs of liposomes prepared by the (B) SCF-CO2 method, (C) conventional method.
Influence of the lyophilization process on particle size, zeta potential, yield, and encapsulation efficiency of the SCF-CO2.
| Condition | Size (nm) | ZP (mV) | Yield (%) | EE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before LP | 137.3 ± 7.3 | −42.5 ± 1.0 | 91.6 ± 1.2 | 89.2 ± 1.8 |
| After LP | 146.8 ± 2.2 | −43.6 ± 1.7 | 90.2 ± 1.0 | 88.9 ± 2.2 |
LP, lyophilization; ZP, Zeta Potential; EE, Encapsulation efficiency.
Figure 7Change of particle size and polydispersity index (PDI) of (A) SCF-CO2 liposomes, and (B) conventional liposomes stored at −5 °C over time. Data are expressed as the mean standard deviation (n = 4).
Figure 8Hemolysis of rat RBCs at various concentrations of AmB as Fungizone® and liposomal AmB prepared by the SCF-CO2 process.
Figure 9Plasma concentration-time profile of commercial products (AmBisome® and Fungizone®) and the SCF liposomal AmB after administration as a single dose of 3 mg/kg by a tail vein injection. Data are expressed as the mean standard deviation (n = 4).
Comparative in vivo pharmacokinetics parameters observed in rats (n = 4).
| Parameters | Groups | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| AmBisome® | SCF-CO2 Liposomal AmB | Fungizone® | |
| C(0.25 h) (µg/mL) | 122.28 ± 15.60 | 124.83 ± 12.41 | 119.61 ± 0.76 |
| AUC(0–24 h) (µg·h/mL) | 316.79 ± 60.46 | 325.64 ± 32.76 | 76.10 ± 1.56 |
| AUC(0–∞) (µg·h/mL) | 369.45 ± 60.06 | 349.81 ± 28.50 | 79.66 ± 2.74 |
| 9.76 ± 1.74 | 6.25 ± 0.50 | 6.98 ± 1.50 | |
SCF liposomal AmB vs. Fungizone® p = 0.0343; AmBisome® vs. Fungizone® p = 0.0406; SCF liposomal AmB vs. AmBisome® p = 0.8924. p < 0.05 represents a significant difference by two-sided RM ANOVA and Bonferroni test.