| Literature DB >> 32210125 |
Oluwatoyin A Adeleke1,2, Rose K Hayeshi2,3, Hajierah Davids4.
Abstract
Tuberculosis (TB) is a major cause of childhood death. Despite the startling statistics, it is neglected globally as evidenced by treatment and clinical care schemes, mostly extrapolated from studies in adults. The objective of this study was to formulate and evaluate a reconstitutable dry suspension (RDS) containing isoniazid, a first-line anti-tubercular agent used in the treatment and prevention of TB infection in both children and adults. The RDS formulation was prepared by direct dispersion emulsification of an aqueous-lipid particulate interphase coupled with lyophilization and dry milling. The RDS appeared as a cream-white free-flowing powder with a semi-crystalline and microparticulate nature. Isoniazid release was characterized with an initial burst up to 5 minutes followed by a cumulative release of 67.88% ± 1.88% (pH 1.2), 60.18% ± 3.33% (pH 6.8), and 49.36% ± 2.83% (pH 7.4) over 2 hours. An extended release at pH 7.4 and 100% drug liberation was achieved within 300 minutes. The generated release profile best fitted the zero order kinetics (R2 = 0.976). RDS was re-dispersible and remained stable in the dried and reconstituted states over 4 months and 11 days, respectively, under common storage conditions.Entities:
Keywords: direct emulsification; isoniazid; microparticulate; pediatric drug delivery; polymer-lipid; reconstitutable dry suspension; tuberculosis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32210125 PMCID: PMC7151029 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12030286
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Figure 1Representative graphs displaying: (a) particle size distribution, (b) zeta potential distribution, as well as TEM micrographs showing different surface topographies and characteristics of the reconstitutable dry suspension (RDS) particles at different scales: (c) 1μm and (d) 5 μm, respectively.
Figure 2Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) thermograms of (a) unformulated isoniazid, (b) RDS formulation, and (c) an expanded segment of the RDS thermograms showing the transitions that occurred with formulated isoniazid.
Figure 3X-ray diffractograms of (a) unformulated isoniazid and (b) isoniazid loaded RDS formulation.
Figure 4The Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrum of the unformulated isoniazid and RDS formulation, showing different characteristic vibrational bands.
FTIR vibrational frequencies representing formulated and unformulated isoniazid key functional groups.
| Functional Groups and Remarks | Vibrational Frequencies (cm−1) | |
|---|---|---|
| Unformulated Isoniazid | Isoniazid Loaded RDS Formulation | |
| C–C–C–C and C–N–C–C torsion | 653 | 665 |
| NH2 rock | 677 | 677 |
| C–C–C out of plane bending | 746 | 757 |
| C–C–H out of plane bending | 850 and 1022 | 850 and 1023 |
| C–N–C and C–C–C in plane bending | 1063 | 1062 |
| Aromatic C–N stretching | 1344 | 1330 |
| C–C–H in plane bending | 1210 | 1212 |
| O=C-N in plane bending | 1330 | 1333 |
| C–N–H in plane bending | 1411 | 1408 |
| C–C stretching | 1477 | 1471 |
| C=O stretching | 1558 | 1552 |
| NH2 scissoring | 1632 | 1635 |
| Aromatic C–H stretching | 3052 | 3054 |
| N–H stretching | 3307 | 3308 |
| O–H stretching | - | 3676 |
Figure 5Graphical profile showing 100% isoniazid release from the RDS formulation over time.
Representative mathematical models and their respective fit parameters.
| Mathematical Models | R2 | AIC |
|---|---|---|
| Zero order | 0.976 | 74.080 |
| First order | 0.159 | 176.881 |
| Second order | 0.091 | 129.633 |
| Korsmeyer-Peppas | 0.997 | 110.291 |
| Weibull | 0.990 | 92.616 |
| Michaelis-Menten | 1.000 | 120.737 |
| Higuchi | -0.341 | 127.138 |
Stability indicators measured under the different storage conditions.
| RDS Formulation Test Conditions | Time (Months) | Stability Indicators | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0 | 0.37 | −41.10 | 1.63 | 94.12 | No change | |
| 1 | 0.40 | −42.59 | 1.58 | 94.07 | No change | |
| 4 | 0.39 | −43.60 | 1.82 | 93.76 | Slight change | |
|
| 0 | 0.37 | −41.10 | 1.63 | 94.12 | No change |
| 1 | 0.44 | −42.71 | 1.69 | 93.95 | No change | |
| 4 | 0.46 | −40.51 | 1.97 | 91.05 | Slight change | |
|
| 0 | 0.37 | −41.10 | 1.63 | 94.12 | No change |
| 1 | 0.39 | −41.65 | 1.61 | 93.95 | No change | |
| 4 | 0.38 | −40.91 | 1.70 | 94.02 | No change | |
Particle Size (standard deviation ≤ 0.13 μm in all cases), Polydispersity Index (standard deviation ≤ 0.03 in all cases), Zeta Potential (standard deviation ≤ 1.03 mV in all cases), Drug Content (standard deviation ≤ 0.99% in all cases).
Hydrostability indicators at different time-points, under ambient and refrigerated conditions.
| Test Conditions | Time-Points (Days) | Drug Content (%) | Discoloration |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 94.12 | None |
| 1 | 93.18 | None | |
| 5 | 93.61 | None | |
| 11 | 92.89 | None | |
|
| 0 | 94.12 | None |
| 1 | 93.33 | None | |
| 5 | 93.79 | None | |
| 11 | 92.56 | None |
Figure 6Graphical illustration of the percentage cell viability 24-h post-exposure to the RDS formulation in the human breast cancer (MCF-7) cell lines as a prototype. Statistical difference between two data sets was considered significant when p < 0.05.