| Literature DB >> 32085802 |
Tarek A Ahmed1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rosuvastatin (RSV) is a poorly water-soluble drug that has an absolute oral bioavailability of only 20%. The aim of this work was to prepare a positively charged chitosan coated flexible lipid-based vesicles (chitosomes) and compare their characteristics to the corresponding negatively charged flexible liposomal nanoparticles (NPs) in order to develop new RSV nanocarrier systems.Entities:
Keywords: Chitosomes; Cytotoxicity; Liposomes; Optimization; Rosuvastatin; cell viability
Year: 2020 PMID: 32085802 PMCID: PMC7035742 DOI: 10.1186/s40360-020-0393-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pharmacol Toxicol ISSN: 2050-6511 Impact factor: 2.483
Composition of rosuvastatin chitosomes nanoparticles formulations and the obtained values for the studied responses
| Run | X1 | X2 | X3 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size (nm) | PDI | ||||||
| 1 | 1.0 | 0.01 | 0.4 | 239.48 ± 5.33 | 0.344 ± 0.065 | 90.88 ± 1.65 | 12.66 ± 1.58 |
| 2 | 4.0 | 0.04 | 0.4 | 225.27 ± 6.59 | 0.425 ± 0.095 | 86.94 ± 4.94 | 18.10 ± 3.38 |
| 3 | 2.5 | 0.04 | 0.2 | 112.19 ± 2.90 | 0.288 ± 0.009 | 85.14 ± 5.04 | − 1.83 ± 0.55 |
| 4 | 2.5 | 0.01 | 0.6 | 554.33 ± 11.06 | 0.573 ± 0.045 | 94.59 ± 1.62 | 26.74 ± 0.26 |
| 5 | 2.5 | 0.04 | 0.6 | 507.40 ± 18.14 | 0.581 ± 0.051 | 91.97 ± 4.89 | 26.07 ± 1.90 |
| 6 | 4.0 | 0.01 | 0.4 | 295.40 ± 5.11 | 0.258 ± 0.023 | 88.75 ± 3.99 | 10.70 ± 0.16 |
| 7 | 4.0 | 0.025 | 0.6 | 547.33 ± 20.09 | 0.511 ± 0.024 | 92.79 ± 1.76 | 28.87 ± 1.39 |
| 8 | 2.5 | 0.01 | 0.2 | 163.13 ± 3.29 | 0.391 ± 0.053 | 87.94 ± 2.04 | − 8.14 ± 0.51 |
| 9 | 1.0 | 0.025 | 0.6 | 535.33 ± 43.12 | 0.543 ± 0.053 | 93.22 ± 1.24 | 27.23 ± 0.31 |
| 10 | 1.0 | 0.025 | 0.2 | 132.77 ± 4.46 | 0.439 ± 0.061 | 87.61 ± 2.07 | −10.07 ± 1.26 |
| 11 | 1.0 | 0.04 | 0.4 | 219.53 ± 6.36 | 0.354 ± 0.071 | 90.63 ± 2.15 | 13.15 ± 0.75 |
| 12 | 4.0 | 0.025 | 0.2 | 132.97 ± 2.11 | 0.318 ± 0.022 | 84.78 ± 3.09 | −6.92 ± 0.16 |
| 13 | 2.5 | 0.025 | 0.4 | 255.83 ± 8.37 | 0.394 ± 0.128 | 85.44 ± 2.21 | 11.26 ± 2.04 |
| 14 | 2.5 | 0.025 | 0.4 | 252.30 ± 3.84 | 0.318 ± 0.088 | 86.38 ± 3.03 | 11.83 ± 2.67 |
| 15 | 2.5 | 0.025 | 0.4 | 259.77 ± 3.69 | 0.382 ± 0.043 | 85.15 ± 4.07 | 14.87 ± 1.89 |
Abbreviations: X Drug to phospholipid, X Surfactant concentration, X Coating solution concentration, Y Particle size (nm,Y Entrapment efficiency (%), Y Zeta potential (mV), MR Molar ratio, PDI Poly dispersity index
Estimated effects of factors, F-ratios, and associated P-values for the studied responses Y1-Y3
| Factor | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated effect | F-ratio | Estimated effect | F-ratio | Estimated effect | F-ratio | ||||
| X1 | 21.415 | 6.68 | 0.0492a | −1.67 | 6.08 | 0.0569 | 1.568 | 0.75 | 0.4262 |
| X2 | −45.985 | 30.80 | 0.0026a | −1.825 | 7.26 | 0.0431a | 1.638 | 0.82 | 0.4073 |
| X3 | 714.135 | 2252.15 | 0.00001a | 14.160 | 132.45 | 0.0001a | 35.187 | 114.48 | 0.0001a |
| X1X1 | −8.209 | 0.68 | 0.4472 | 3.333 | 16.76 | 0.0094a | 0.067 | 0.00 | 0.9767 |
| X1X2 | −25.09 | 6.88 | 0.0470a | −0.78 | 0.99 | 0.3645 | 3.455 | 2.73 | 0.1593 |
| X1X3 | 7.375 | 0.38 | 0.5644 | 1.5 | 2.35 | 0.1856 | −0.944 | 0.13 | 0.7328 |
| X2X2 | −13.884 | 1.94 | 0.2220 | 3.953 | 23.58 | 0.0047a | 1.932 | 0.79 | 0.4154 |
| X2X3 | 2.506 | 0.04 | 0.8423 | 0.113 | 0.01 | 0.9129 | −4.363 | 2.79 | 0.1559 |
| X3X3 | 266.368 | 293.08 | 0.00001a | 7.115 | 31.27 | 0.0025a | −9.092 | 7.15 | 0.0442a |
| R2 (%) | 99.87 | 97.99 | 99.09 | ||||||
| Adj. R2 (%) | 99.64 | 94.38 | 97.47 | ||||||
| SE of Est. | 9.57 | 0.782 | 2.091 | ||||||
| Mean AE | 4.82 | 0.406 | 1.058 | ||||||
Abbreviations: X Drug to phospholipid, X Surfactant concentration, X Coating solution concentration, Y Particle size (nm), Y Entrapment efficiency (%), Y Zeta potential (mV), XX, XX, and XX are the interaction effects of the studied factors, XX XX and XX are the quadratic effects of factors, SE Standard error, AE Absolute error
Note: a indicates significant effect of this factor on the studied response
Fig. 1Standardized Pareto charts and response surface plots for the effect of the studied factors on Y1-Y3. X1, Drug to phospholipid; X2, Surfactant concentration; X3, Coating solution concentration; Y1, Particle size (nm); Y2, Entrapment efficiency (%); Y3, Zeta potential (mV); X1X2, X1X3, and X2X3 are the interaction effects of the studied factors; X1X1, X2X2 and X3X3 are the quadratic effects of factors
The optimum levels and values, and desirability levels and values for the studied factors and responses
| Factors | Low | High | Optimum level for each response | Optimum desirability level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y1 = 99.12 nm | Y2 = 95.99% | Y3 = 28.85 mV | ||||
| 1.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |
| 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.59 | 0.47 | |
| Minimize | 331.09 | 342.33 | 11.24 | |||
| Maximize | 92.31 | 94.01 | 1.7 | |||
| Maximize | 19.39 | 21.22 | 1.83 | |||
Abbreviations: X Drug to phospholipid, X Surfactant concentration, X Coating solution concentration, Y Particle size, Y Entrapment efficiency, Y Zeta potential, MR Molar ratio
Fig. 2TEM images of rosuvastatin liposomal NPs (a) and chitosomes nano-formulation (b)
Fig. 3Fourier-transformed infrared spectra of rosuvastatin, phospholipid, chitosan, liposomal NPs and chitosomes nano-formulation
Fig. 4In vitro release of rosuvastatin from pure drug suspension, liposomal NPs and chitosomes nano-formulation
Fig. 5Cell viability after treatment with free liposomal NPs and chitosomes nano-formulation (a), and following treatment with rosuvastatin loaded liposomal NPs and chitosomes nano-formulation (b)