| Literature DB >> 33981176 |
Ameeduzzafar Zafar1, Nabil K Alruwaili1, Syed Sarim Imam2, Nasser Hadal Alotaibi3, Khalid Saad Alharbi4, Muhammad Afzal4, Raisuddin Ali2,5, Sultan Alshehri2,6, Sami I Alzarea4, Mohammed Elmowafy1,7, Nabil A Alhakamy8, Mohamed F Ibrahim7.
Abstract
AIM: Diabetic (type-2) is a metabolic disease characterized by increased blood glucose level from the normal level. In the present study, apigenin (AG) loaded lipid vesicles (bilosomes: BIL) was prepared, optimized and evaluated for the oral therapeutic efficacy. EXPERIMENTAL: AG-BIL was prepared by a thin-film evaporation method using cholesterol, span 60 and sodium deoxycholate. The prepared formulation was optimized by 3-factor and 3-level Box-Behnken design using particle size, entrapment efficiency and drug release as a response. The selected formulation further evaluated for ex-vivo permeation, in vivo pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics study.Entities:
Keywords: Anti-diabetic activity; Apigenin; Bilosomes; Diabetes; Optimization; Pharmacokinetic
Year: 2021 PMID: 33981176 PMCID: PMC8085606 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2021.02.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi Pharm J ISSN: 1319-0164 Impact factor: 4.330
Independent variables and responses used for optimization of bilosomes.
| Independent variables | Low (−1) | Medium (0) | High (+1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: Cholesterol (CHO, %) | 10 | 20 | 30 |
| B: Surfactant (Span 60, %) | 50 | 60 | 70 |
| C: Bile Salt (Sodium deoxycholate, SDC) | 10 | 15 | 20 |
| Y1: Vesicle size (nm) | Optimum | ||
| Y2: Entrapment efficiency (%) | Maximize | ||
| Y3: Drug release (%) | Maximize | ||
Formulation design and their practical and predicted value of all responses.
| 1 | 10 | 50 | 15 | 155.98 | 155.87 | 69.54 | 69.56 | 93.08 | 92.97 |
| 2 | 30 | 50 | 15 | 267.32 | 267.05 | 87.74 | 87.78 | 85.20 | 85.14 |
| 3 | 10 | 70 | 15 | 118.93 | 119.19 | 78.63 | 78.59 | 82.39 | 82.44 |
| 4 | 30 | 70 | 15 | 197.34 | 197.45 | 93.04 | 93.02 | 76.34 | 76.44 |
| 5 | 10 | 60 | 10 | 155.32 | 155.24 | 71.62 | 71.69 | 84.98 | 85.04 |
| 6 | 30 | 60 | 10 | 247.15 | 247.23 | 89.31 | 89.36 | 78.09 | 78.11 |
| 7 | 10 | 60 | 20 | 133.45 | 133.37 | 73.75 | 73.7 | 91.32 | 91.30 |
| 8 | 30 | 60 | 20 | 230.76 | 230.83 | 88.74 | 88.67 | 84.45 | 84.38 |
| 9 | 20 | 50 | 10 | 241.65 | 241.84 | 79.13 | 79.04 | 87.23 | 87.27 |
| 10 | 20 | 70 | 10 | 170.66 | 170.47 | 83.74 | 83.71 | 77.23 | 77.11 |
| 11 | 20 | 50 | 20 | 204.28 | 204.47 | 77.21 | 77.24 | 92.87 | 92.99 |
| 12 | 20 | 70 | 20 | 169.76 | 169.57 | 86.75 | 86.84 | 83.97 | 83.92 |
| 13 | 20 | 60 | 15 | 183.25 | 183.67 | 81.67 | 81.67 | 86.98 | 86.46 |
| 14 | 20 | 60 | 15 | 183.65 | 183.67 | 82.04 | 81.67 | 86.76 | 86.46 |
| 15 | 20 | 60 | 15 | 184.89 | 183.67 | 81.12 | 81.67 | 86.02 | 86.46 |
| 16 | 20 | 60 | 15 | 184.02 | 183.67 | 81.56 | 81.67 | 86.12 | 86.46 |
| 17 | 20 | 60 | 15 | 182.54 | 183.67 | 81.98 | 81.67 | 86.45 | 86.46 |
Analysis of variance of response surface quadratic model of each response.
| Quadratic | Sum of Squares | 25402.66 | 650.94 | 373.006 |
| df | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
| Mean Square | 2822.518 | 72.32 | 41.44 | |
| F- Value | 5811.195 | 868.50 | 393.03 | |
| P-value, Prob > F | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | |
| Remark | Suggested, Significant | |||
| Quadratic | Sum of Squares | 0.33 | 0.035425 | 0.068 |
| df | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Mean Square | 0.11 | 0.011808 | 0.02 | |
| F- Value | 0.14 | 0.086268 | 0.13 | |
| P-value, Prob > F | 0.92 | 0.96 | 0.93 | |
| Remark | Suggested, not significant | |||
| Quadratic | Sum of Squares | 3.399925 | 0.582945 | 0.73814 |
| df | 7 | 7 | 7 | |
| Mean Square | 0.485704 | 0.083278 | 0.105449 | |
Fig. 1A3D response surface plot showing effect of independent variable over the vesicle size.
Fig. 1B3D response surface plot showing effect of independent variable over the entrapment efficiency.
Fig. 1C3D response surface plot showing effect of independent variable over the drug release.
Fig. 2Actual and predicted value graph of A) Vesicle size, B) Entrapment efficiency, C) Drug release (%).
Fig. 3A) vesicle size distribution graph of AG-BIL-Opt, B) TEM image of AG-BIL-Opt.
Fig. 4DSC Thermogram of A) Apigenin, B) Cholesterol, C) Sodium deoxycholate, D) optimized bilosome.
Fig. 5In-vitro drug release study of AG-BILopt and AG-dispersion.
Fig. 6Plasma concentration Vs time graph of oral administration of AG-BILopt and AG-Dispersion in rats.
Fig. 7Mean fasting blood glucose level at different time point after treatment with AG-BILopt and AG-Dispersion.
Statistical summary of each model for all responses predicted from statistical design software.
| Source (Model) | R2 | Adjusted R2 | Predicted R2 | Standard deviation | Coefficient of variance (%) | Remark |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear | 0.9574 | 0.9476 | 0.9161 | 9.12 | --- | --- |
| 2FI | 0.9814 | 0.9703 | 0.9265 | 6.86 | --- | --- |
| Quadratic | 0.9999 | 0.9997 | 0.9996 | 0.69 | 0.37 | Suggested |
| Linear | 0.9755 | 0.9698 | 0.9494 | 1.10 | --- | --- |
| 2FI | 0.9931 | 0.9889 | 0.9680 | 0.67 | --- | --- |
| Quadratic | 0.9991 | 0.9980 | 0.9978 | 0.28 | 0.35 | Suggested |
| Linear | 0.9613 | 0.9524 | 0.9395 | 1.05 | --- | --- |
| 2FI | 0.9644 | 0.9430 | 0.9019 | 1.15 | --- | --- |
| Quadratic | 0.9980 | 0.9954 | 0.9942 | 0.32 | 0.38 | Suggested |
Comparative estimated biochemical parameters result of different treated groups.
| NC | 47.76 ± 0.87 | 64.62 ± 0.5 | 50.23 ± 0.6 | 35.72 ± 0.6 | 1.28 ± 0.2 | 28.24 ± 1.03 | 72.34 ± 2 0.1 |
| DC | 72.2 ± 1.1 | 103.76 ± 1.8 | 28.52 ± 1.6 | 62.76 ± 2.3 | 2.35 ± 0.4 | 51.25 ± 1.43 | 89.5 ± 2.3 |
| Free-AG-Dispersion | 57.8 ± 1.2 | 82.39 ± 0.7 | 37.59 ± 1.4 | 51.87 ± 1.5 | 1.87 ± 0.5 | 40.38 ± 1.13 | 80.04 ± 2.1 |
| AG-BILopt | 49.2 ± 1.4*** | 66.19 ± 0.9*** | 45.39 ± 1.8*** | 39.65 ± 1.4*** | 1.35 ± 0.4*** | 29.28 ± 1.03*** | 72.34 ± 1.3*** |
***P < 0.0001 as compared to diabetic control group, SGPT: Serum glutamic –pyruvic transaminase, SGOT:- Serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, Uric acid:- UA, HDL-C:- High density lipoprotein- Cholesterol, Triglycerides: TG, Total cholesterol: TC.