| Literature DB >> 35448142 |
Nabil A Alhakamy1,2, Khaled M Hosny1,2,3, Waleed Y Rizg1,2, Bayan A Eshmawi1, Moutaz Y Badr4, Awaji Y Safhi5, Samar S A Murshid6.
Abstract
Fungal eye infections are largely disseminated, especially in developing countries where they may leave over half a million people blind per year. The current study aims to boost the voriconazole antifungal efficiency via loading it as cubosomes (VZ-Cub) into hyaluronic acid and poloxamer-based ocular in situ gel. VZ-Cub were fabricated applying Box-Behnken design and employing phytantriol, poloxamer F127, and VZ amounts as independent variables. The produced nano vesicles were evaluated for the dependent variables of particle size (PS), entrapment efficiency (EE%), and transcorneal steady-state flux (Jss) of the VZ, and, the obtained optimal VZ-Cub was loaded into an in situ gel base to enhance its ocular residence time. The in situ gel formulation was tested for its gelation temperature, drug release behavior, transcorneal permeation effects, and antifungal activity. The optimized VZ-Cub consisted of 100 mg of phytantriol, 60 mg of poloxamer F127, and 21 mg of VZ. This formulation led to a minimum PS of 71 nm, an EE% of 66%, Jss value of 6.5 µg/(cm2·min), and stability index of 94 ± 2%. The optimized VZ-Cub-loaded in situ gel released 84% VZ after 12 h and yielded a 4.5-fold increase in drug permeation compared with the VZ aqueous dispersion. The antifungal activity, which was obtained by measuring the fungal growth inhibition zones, revealed that the VZ-Cub-loaded in situ gel formulation had a 3.89-fold increase in antifungal activity compared with the VZ dispersion. In summary, an ocular in situ gel loaded with VZ-Cub could be an effective novel nano-paradigm with enhanced transcorneal permeation and antifungal properties.Entities:
Keywords: Box-Behnken design; antifungal; hyaluronic acid; nanocubosomes; voriconazole
Year: 2022 PMID: 35448142 PMCID: PMC9032757 DOI: 10.3390/gels8040241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gels ISSN: 2310-2861
The composition of different VZ-Cub formulations as determined by the BBD, indicating values for each independent variable (A, B, and C) and the measured responses (Y1, Y2, and Y3).
| A | B | C | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | Phytantriol | Poloxamer F127 | Voriconazole | Particle Size | EE | Jss | PDI |
| (mg) | (mg) | (mg) | (nm) | (%) | µg/(cm2·min) | ||
| 1 | 200 | 20 | 20 | 430 ± 6.0 | 88 ± 5.3 | 3.5 ± 0.50 | 0.17 |
| 2 | 150 | 20 | 15 | 350 ± 6.5 | 69 ± 3.1 | 3.5 ± 0.22 | 0.22 |
| 3 | 100 | 40 | 15 | 140 ± 5.8 | 44 ± 2.0 | 5.8 ± 0.61 | 0.19 |
| 4 | 150 | 20 | 25 | 260 ± 8.0 | 55 ± 1.9 | 4.1 ± 0.44 | 0.15 |
| 5 | 100 | 20 | 20 | 290 ± 6.6 | 67 ± 3.8 | 4.4 ± 0.31 | 0.34 |
| 6 | 150 | 60 | 25 | 180 ± 2.9 | 57 ± 4.1 | 5.9 ± 0.24 | 0.40 |
| 7 | 100 | 40 | 25 | 150 ± 5.2 | 46 ± 2.2 | 5.4 ± 9.62 | 0.39 |
| 8 | 200 | 40 | 25 | 350 ± 9.9 | 60 ± 5.1 | 4.7 ± 0.41 | 0.38 |
| 9 | 100 | 60 | 20 | 65 ± 2.5 | 65 ± 5.4 | 6.9 ± 0.45 | 0.33 |
| 10 | 150 | 60 | 15 | 165 ± 3.5 | 52 ±2.7 | 6.1± 0.33 | 0.35 |
| 11 | 200 | 40 | 15 | 400 ± 10 | 73 ± 6.6 | 4.3 ± 0.18 | 0.40 |
| 12 | 150 | 40 | 20 | 240 ± 7.2 | 72 ± 5.9 | 4.3 ± 0.27 | 0.29 |
| 13 | 150 | 40 | 20 | 255 ± 6.5 | 71 ± 7.0 | 4.5 ± 0.41 | 0.19 |
| 14 | 150 | 40 | 20 | 220 ± 4.5 | 74 ± 6.9 | 4.4 ± 0.42 | 0.26 |
| 15 | 200 | 60 | 20 | 265 ± 8.1 | 75 ± 5.7 | 6.2 ± 0.39 | 0.38 |
| 16 | 200 | 60 | 25 | 290 ± 5.9 | 64 ± 3.9 | 6.5 ± 0.51 | 0.37 |
| 17 | 100 | 20 | 15 | 270 ± 7.1 | 48 ± 3.3 | 4.1 ± 0.22 | 0.25 |
Figure 1(A) Perturbation, (B) contour, and (C) response surface plots showing the effect of studied independent variables on VZ-Cub particle size.
Figure 2(A) Perturbation, (B) contour, and (C) response surface plots showing the effect of studied independent variables on the EE% of the VZ-Cub.
Regression analysis results for Y1, Y2, and Y3 responses.
| R2 | Adjusted R2 | Predicted R2 | SD | CV% | Adeq. Precision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Y1 | 0.915 | 0.8954 | 0.844 | 31.1 | 12.24 | 24.1108 |
| Response Y2 | 0.9774 | 0.9484 | 0.8404 | 2.72 | 4.28 | 21.9001 |
| Response Y3 | 0.9789 | 0.9517 | 0.8851 | 0.2349 | 4.72 | 19.9592 |
Figure 3(A) Perturbation, (B) contour, and (C) response surface plots showing the effect of studied independent variables on the Jss of the VZ-Cub.
Figure 4Bar chart and desirability ramp for optimization process. The desirability ramp illustrates the levels of the studied independent factors and the expected values for the measured responses of the optimized VZ-Cub (A). The bar chart illustrates the values of desirability for the conjugated responses (B).
Actual and experimental values of the optimized VZ-Cub formulation.
| Phytantriol | Poloxamer F127 (mg) | VZ (mg) | Particle Size (nm) | EE (%) | Jss | Desirability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicated value | 100 | 60 | 21 | 69.7 | 64.19 | 6.83 | 0.763 |
| Experimental value | 100 | 60 | 21 | 71 | 60 | 6.5 | 0.763 |
Figure 5TEM image of optimized VZ-Cub formulation.
Figure 6Elastic (G′) and viscous (G″) moduli of poloxamer F127/HA polymers in situ gel as a function of the temperature at a frequency value of 0.01 Hz. Results are the means of three measurements. SD was always lower than 10%. Error bars are omitted for clarity.
Gelation temperature of different VZ-Cub-loaded in situ gel formulations (mean ± SD, n = 3).
| Formulation | Poloxamer Conc. (% | Hyaluronic Acid Conc. (% | Tgel |
|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 10% | 0.2% | 40 ± 0.5 °C |
| F2 | 15% | 0.2% | 35 ± 0.2 °C |
| F3 | 20% | 0.2% | 31 ± 0.3 °C |
| F4 | 10% | 0.4% | 36 ± 0.2 °C |
| F5 | 15% | 0.4% | 30 ± 0.1 °C |
| F6 | 20% | 0.4% | 27 ± 0.4 °C |
N.B. all formulations contain 0.3% w/v of VZ.
Figure 7In vitro release profiles of VZ from optimal VZ-Cub dispersion, F4 and F2 in situ gels, and VZ aqueous suspension (mean ± SD, n = 3).
Permeation parameters.
| Parameters of Permeation | F4 | VZ-Cub Aqueous Dispersion | VZ Aqueous Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative amount permeated (μg/cm2) | 1741 ± 201 | 939 ± 113 | 379 ± 52 |
| Steady-state flux, Jss, (μg/cm2·min) | 13.21 ± 1.1 | 6.5 ± 0.3 | 1.7 ± 0.2 |
| Permeability coefficient, Pc, (cm/min) | 12.3 × 10−4 | 7.6 × 10−4 | 3.2 × 10−4 |
| Diffusion coefficient, D, (cm2/min) | 33.2 × 10−5 | 18.4 × 10−5 | 7.1 × 10−5 |
| Enhancement factor (EF) | 4.59 | 2.477 | - |