| Literature DB >> 34515597 |
Khaled M Hosny1,2, Waleed Y Rizg1,2, Hala M Alkhalidi3, Walaa A Abualsunun1, Rana B Bakhaidar1, Alshaimaa M Almehmady1, Adel F Alghaith4, Sultan Alshehri4, Amani M El Sisi5.
Abstract
Natamycin (NT) is a synthetic broad-spectrum antifungal used in eye drops. However, it has low solubility and high molecular weight, limiting its permeation, and generally causes eye discomfort or irritation when administered. Therefore, the present study aimed to develop an ophthalmic in situ gel formulation with NT-loaded cubosomes to enhance ocular permeation, improve antifungal activity, and prolong the retention time within the eye. The NT-loaded cubosome (NT-Cub) formula was first optimized using an I-optimal design utilizing phytantriol, PolyMulse, and NT as the independent formulation factors and particle size, entrapment efficiency %, and inhibition zone as responses. Phytantriol was found to increase particle size and entrapment efficiency %. Higher levels of PolyMulse slightly increased the inhibition zone whereas a decrease in particle size and EE% was observed. Increasing the NT level initially increased the entrapment efficiency % and inhibition zone. The optimized NT-Cub formulation was converted into an in situ gel system using 1.5% Carbopol 934. The optimum formula showed a pH-sensitive increase in viscosity, favoring prolonged retention in the eye. The in vitro release of NT was found to be 71 ± 4% in simulated tear fluid. The optimum formulation enhanced the ex vivo permeation of NT by 3.3 times compared to a commercial formulation and 5.2 times compared to the NT suspension. The in vivo ocular irritation test proved that the optimum formulation is less irritating than a commercial formulation of NT. This further implies that the developed formulation produces less ocular irritation and can reduce the required frequency of administration.Entities:
Keywords: Cubosomes; cornea; in situ gel; keratitis; natamycin; permeation; phytantriol
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34515597 PMCID: PMC8439233 DOI: 10.1080/10717544.2021.1965675
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drug Deliv ISSN: 1071-7544 Impact factor: 6.819
The independent factors for the design in terms of actual values.
| Run | Factor-A | Factor-B | Factor-C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phytantriol (mg) | PolyMulse (mg) | Natamycin (mg) | |
| 1 | 1200 | 200 | 565 |
| 2 | 1200 | 600 | 750 |
| 3 | 1020 | 592 | 475 |
| 4 | 1068 | 330 | 407 |
| 5 | 1020 | 592 | 475 |
| 6 | 992 | 379 | 475 |
| 7 | 992 | 379 | 475 |
| 8 | 800 | 200 | 750 |
| 9 | 948 | 200 | 250 |
| 10 | 800 | 600 | 750 |
| 11 | 1200 | 450 | 250 |
| 12 | 980 | 481 | 250 |
| 13 | 1200 | 440 | 570 |
| 14 | 800 | 600 | 250 |
| 15 | 1200 | 200 | 250 |
| 16 | 1020 | 380 | 740 |
| 17 | 978 | 200 | 592 |
| 18 | 1020 | 380 | 740 |
Constraints and goals selected to optimize the NT-Cub formulation.
| Factor | Name | Goal | Lower limit | Upper limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent factors | Phytantriol | Is in range | 800 mg | 1200 mg |
| PolyMulse | Is in range | 200 mg | 600 mg | |
| Natamycin | Is in range | 250 mg | 750 mg | |
| Responses | Particle size (nm) | Minimize | 46 nm | 222 nm |
| EE (%) | Maximize | 51% | 91% | |
| Inhibition zone (mm) | Maximize | 9 mm | 24.5 mm |
Description of Draize scoring rules.
| Endpoint | Description | Range |
|---|---|---|
| Cornea | Degree of opacity and ulcerations | 0–4 |
| Iris | Swelling, hyperemia | 0–2 |
| Conjunctivae | Redness, vessel discernibility | 0–3 |
| Chemosis | Swelling, lids closed/open | 0–4 |
The independent factors and responses for the design of experiments.
| Run | Factor-A | Factor-B | Factor-C | Response 1 | Response 2 | Response 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phytantriol (mg) | PolyMulse (mg) | Natamycin (mg) | Particle size (nm) | EE (%) | Inhibition Zone (mm) | ||||
| Observed | Predicted | Observed | Predicted | Observed | Predicted | ||||
| 1 | 1200 | 200 | 565 | 222 | 222.46 | 91 | 91.28 | 11.5 | 11.49 |
| 2 | 1200 | 600 | 750 | 173 | 173.99 | 59 | 59.88 | 13 | 13.26 |
| 3 | 1020 | 592 | 475 | 153 | 152.81 | 84 | 85.18 | 18 | 17.93 |
| 4 | 1068 | 330 | 407 | 167 | 168.02 | 87 | 85.68 | 16 | 16.04 |
| 5 | 1020 | 592 | 475 | 154 | 152.81 | 85 | 85.18 | 18 | 17.93 |
| 6 | 992 | 379 | 475 | 74 | 75.61 | 80 | 81.76 | 24.5 | 24.64 |
| 7 | 992 | 379 | 475 | 76 | 75.61 | 81 | 81.76 | 24.5 | 24.64 |
| 8 | 800 | 200 | 750 | 143 | 142.79 | 53 | 52.44 | 13 | 12.87 |
| 9 | 948 | 200 | 250 | 174 | 172.96 | 70 | 68.86 | 11.5 | 11.16 |
| 10 | 800 | 600 | 750 | 64 | 65.54 | 50 | 49.59 | 21.5 | 21.44 |
| 11 | 1200 | 450 | 250 | 160 | 159.91 | 67 | 67.67 | 14 | 14.06 |
| 12 | 980 | 481 | 250 | 115 | 116.87 | 65 | 64.08 | 16 | 16.17 |
| 13 | 1200 | 440 | 570 | 169 | 167.95 | 89 | 85.80 | 18 | 17.55 |
| 14 | 800 | 600 | 250 | 45 | 45.45 | 62 | 62.84 | 22 | 21.94 |
| 15 | 1200 | 200 | 250 | 212 | 211.65 | 72 | 73.38 | 9 | 9.14 |
| 16 | 1020 | 380 | 740 | 147 | 147.75 | 55 | 56.89 | 13.5 | 13.72 |
| 17 | 978 | 200 | 592 | 200 | 201.07 | 83 | 82.83 | 11.5 | 11.80 |
| 18 | 1020 | 380 | 740 | 150 | 147.75 | 57 | 56.89 | 14 | 13.72 |
ANOVA data for particle size of NT-Cub formulations of experimental runs.
| Source | Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Mean square | – | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 43,271.08 | 9 | 4807.90 | 2207.74 | <.0001 | Significant |
| A-Phytantriol | 22,999.97 | 1 | 22,999.97 | 10,561.36 | <.0001 | – |
| B-PolyMulse | 6882.07 | 1 | 6882.07 | 3160.18 | <.0001 | – |
| C-Natamycin | 299.04 | 1 | 299.04 | 137.32 | <.0001 | – |
| AB | 433.46 | 1 | 433.46 | 199.04 | <.0001 | – |
| AC | 194.06 | 1 | 194.06 | 89.11 | <.0001 | – |
| BC | 17.97 | 1 | 17.97 | 8.25 | .0208 | – |
| A² | 2082.34 | 1 | 2082.34 | 956.19 | <.0001 | – |
| B² | 3814.68 | 1 | 3814.68 | 1751.66 | <.0001 | – |
| C² | 320.36 | 1 | 320.36 | 147.11 | <.0001 | – |
| Residual | 17.42 | 8 | 2.18 | – | – | – |
| Lack of fit | 11.92 | 5 | 2.38 | 1.30 | .4412 | Not significant |
| Pure error | 5.50 | 3 | 1.83 | – | – | – |
| Cor total | 43288.50 | 17 | – | – | – | – |
Figure 1.Design plots of the various responses of NT-Cub formulations: (a) perturbation plot for particle size, (b) contour plot for particle size, (c) response surface plot for particle size, (d) perturbation plot for EE, (e) contour plot for EE, (f) response surface plot for EE, (g) perturbation plot for inhibition zone, (h) contour plot for inhibition zone, and (i) response surface plot for inhibition zone.
ANOVA data for EE% of NT-Cub formulations of experimental runs.
| Source | Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Mean square | – | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 3068.65 | 9 | 340.96 | 95.85 | <.0001 | Significant |
| A-Phytantriol | 153.32 | 1 | 153.32 | 43.10 | .0002 | – |
| B-PolyMulse | 43.12 | 1 | 43.12 | 12.12 | .0083 | – |
| C-Natamycin | 276.87 | 1 | 276.87 | 77.83 | <.0001 | – |
| AB | 1.00 | 1 | 1.00 | 0.2825 | .6095 | – |
| AC | 10.38 | 1 | 10.38 | 2.92 | .1261 | – |
| BC | 0.5529 | 1 | 0.5529 | 0.1554 | .7037 | – |
| A² | 1.01 | 1 | 1.01 | 0.2840 | .6086 | – |
| B² | 16.37 | 1 | 16.37 | 4.60 | .0642 | – |
| C² | 2195.55 | 1 | 2195.55 | 617.20 | <.0001 | – |
| Residual | 28.46 | 8 | 3.56 | – | – | – |
| Lack of fit | 25.46 | 5 | 5.09 | 5.09 | .1054 | Not significant |
| Pure error | 3.00 | 3 | 1.0000 | – | – | |
| Cor total | 3097.11 | 17 | – | – | – | – |
ANOVA data for inhibition zone of NT-Cub formulations of experimental runs.
| Source | Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Mean square | – | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 363.90 | 9 | 40.43 | 446.48 | <.0001 | Significant |
| A-phytantriol | 133.07 | 1 | 133.07 | 1469.42 | <.0001 | – |
| B-PolyMulse | 75.30 | 1 | 75.30 | 831.45 | <.0001 | – |
| C-Natamycin | 3.61 | 1 | 3.61 | 39.89 | .0002 | – |
| AB | 1.88 | 1 | 1.88 | 20.80 | .0018 | – |
| AC | 0.8607 | 1 | 0.8607 | 9.50 | .0150 | – |
| BC | 3.38 | 1 | 3.38 | 37.37 | .0003 | – |
| A² | 29.96 | 1 | 29.96 | 330.81 | <.0001 | – |
| B² | 37.02 | 1 | 37.02 | 408.82 | <.0001 | – |
| C² | 52.28 | 1 | 52.28 | 577.34 | <.0001 | – |
| Residual | 0.7245 | 8 | 0.0906 | – | – | – |
| Lack of fit | 0.5995 | 5 | 0.1199 | 2.88 | .2067 | Not significant |
| Pure error | 0.1250 | 3 | 0.0417 | – | – | – |
| Cor total | 364.63 | 17 | – | – | – | – |
Optimum formula, the predicted responses, and the observed responses for the NT-Cub formulation.
| Independent factors | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | Name | Level | Actual value |
| A | Phytantriol | −1.0000 | 800 mg |
| B | PolyMulse | 0.5604 | 510 mg |
| C | Natamycin | −0.1861 | 460 mg |
Figure 2.In vitro drug release profiles of natamycin (NT) from F1 (optimized NT-Cub dispersed in Carbopol 934 in situ gel base), F2 (optimized NT-Cub dispersed in phosphate buffer pH 5.5), F3 (NT powder dispersed in Carbopol 934 in situ gel base), and NT suspension samples.
Ex vivo permeation data of natamycin (NT) from F1 (optimized NT-Cub dispersed in Carbopol 934 in situ gel base), F2 (optimized NT-Cub dispersed in phosphate buffer pH 5.5), NT suspension, and commercial formulation (Pimafucin) samples.
| Parameters of permeation | F1 | F2 | NT suspension | Commercial formulation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative amount permeated (μg/cm2) | 1613 ± 210†,#,$ | 1101 ± 166@,#,$ | 310 ± 91@,†,$ | 488 ± 68@,†,# |
| Steady-state flux, | 11.221 | 8.227 | 2.833 | 3.644 |
| Permeability coefficient, Pc (cm/min) | 6.4 × 10−4 | 4.8 × 10−4 | 1.9 × 10−4 | 2.5 × 10−4 |
| Diffusion coefficient, | 20.2 × 10−4 | 15.6 × 10−4 | 5.6 × 10−4 | 7.1 × 10−4 |
| Relative permeation rate (RPR) | 3.305 | 2.256 | 0.635 | – |
| Enhancement factor (EF) | 5.203 | 3.551 | – | 1.574 |
Statistical inferences: @p < .05, compared with F1; †p < .05, compared with F2; #p < .05, compared with NT suspension; $p < .05, compared with commercial formulation.
Scores obtained from eye irritation assessment of different formulations tested on New Zealand white rabbits.
| Lesion | Score for each lesion | Control group (non-medicated Carbopol 934 | F1 (optimized NT-Cub dispersed in Carbopol 934 | F2 (aqueous dispersion of NT-Cub) | F3 (NT powder in Carbopol 934 dispersion) | Commercially available NT aqueous suspension |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Conjunctival edema (chemosis) | ||||||
| No swelling | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – |
| Any swelling | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Prominent swelling along with partial lid eversion | 2 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Swelling with half-closed lids | 3 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Swelling with totally closed lids | 4 | – | – | – | – | – |
| (B) Redness in conjunctiva | ||||||
| Absent | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – |
| Abnormal conjunctival injections | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | 1 |
| More diffuse and deeper hyperemia, separate vessels cannot be seen easily | 2 | – | – | – | 2 | – |
| Diffuse and dense hyperemia | 3 | – | – | – | – | – |
| (C) Secretion | ||||||
| Absent | 0 | – | – | 0 | – | – |
| Any abnormal secretion | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Secretion leading to wet eye lashes closer to lids | 2 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Secretion leading to wet lids and whole periorbital area | 3 | – | – | – | – | – |
| (D) Corneal opacity | ||||||
| Absent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – |
| Scattered or diffuse areas, detail of the iris discernible | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | 1 |
| Easy discernible, transparent areas, detail of the iris slightly darkened | 2 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Opalescent areas, no details of the iris discernible, size of the pupil barely discernible | 3 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Opaque cornea, iris not discernible | 4 | – | – | – | – | – |
| (E) Iris involvement | ||||||
| Absent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Pronounced deep folds, congestion, deep swelling circumcorneal injection, the iris still reacts to light | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | 1 |
| No response, hemorrhage, marked destruction | 2 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Total score | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 5 | |