| Literature DB >> 35455488 |
Waleed Y Rizg1,2, N Raghavendra Naveen3, Mallesh Kurakula4, Awaji Y Safhi5, Samar S Murshid6, Rayan Y Mushtaq7, Walaa A Abualsunun1, Majed Alharbi8, Rana B Bakhaidar1, Alshaimaa M Almehmady1, Ahmad Salawi5, Adel Al Fatease9, Khaled M Hosny1,2.
Abstract
Successful drug delivery by mucoadhesive systems depends on the polymer type, which usually gets adherent on hydration. The intended polymers must sustain the association with biomembranes and preserve or accommodate the drug for an extended time. The majority of hydrophilic polymers tend to make weak interactions like noncovalent bonds, which hampers the positioning of dosage forms at the required target sites, leading to inefficient therapeutic outcomes. It is possible to overcome this by functionalizing the natural polymers with thiol moiety. Further, considering that S-protected thiomers can benefit by improving thiol stability at a broad range of pH and enhancing the residence period at the required target, 2-mercapto-nicotinic acid (MA) was utilized in this present study to shield the free thiol groups on thiolated okra (TO). S-protected TO (STO) was synthesized and characterized for various parameters. Glibenclamide-loaded microspheres were formulated using STO (G-STO-M), and the process was optimized. The optimized formulation has shown complete and controlled release of the loaded drug at the end of the dissolution study. Cell viability assay indicated that the thiolated S-protected polymers gelated very well, and the formulated microspheres were safe. Further, G-STO-M showed considerable in vivo mucoadhesion strength. The glucose tolerance test confirmed the efficacy of STO formulation in minimizing the plasma glucose level. These results favor S-protection as an encouraging tool for improving the absorption of poorly aqueous soluble drugs like glibenclamide.Entities:
Keywords: central composite design; glibenclamide; microsphere; mucoadhesion; okra; sustainability of natural resources; thiolation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35455488 PMCID: PMC9031896 DOI: 10.3390/ph15040491
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8247
Comparison of physicochemical properties of okra gum and STO.
| S. No | Property | Okra Gum | STO |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Appearance | Light brown color semi-granular powder | Dark brown color granular powder |
| 2. | Solubility | In | In |
| 3. | pH (2% | 5.8 | 6.4 |
| 4. | Moisture content | 16.63% | 15.89% |
| 5. | Test for foreign matter | <0.1% | <0.1% |
| 6. | Test for arsenic | <0.1 ppm | <0.1 ppm |
Figure 1FTIR spectrum of STO (a) thiol functionalization of OG, (b,c) S-protected thiomers exhibiting wide peaks between 1650 and 1450 cm−1 due to –C=C stretch vibrations (d) C-H wagging between thiomer and aromatic ligand.
Figure 2Rheological studies of okra gum, TO, and STO.
The quantity of thiol and disulfide groups was estimated by quantitative assays.
| Sample | -SH | -S-S- | MNA |
|---|---|---|---|
| (µmol/g) | |||
| TO | 128.31 ± 6.8 | 102.84 ± 12 | – |
| STO | – | – | 119.63 ± 14.5 |
Projected trial batches and their responses for central composite design.
| Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Response 1 | Response 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | A: STO conc | B: Stirring Speed | EE | In vitro mucoadhesion |
| (%) | rpm | % | % | |
| 2 | −0.0177 (0) * | 400 | 52 | 21 |
| 4 | 0.5 | 600 | 52 | 48 |
| 5 | 0.5 | 200 | 47 | 42 |
| 3 | 1.75 | 400 | 67 | 69 |
| 7 | 1.75 | 400 | 67 | 71 |
| 9 | 1.75 | 400 | 69 | 72 |
| 10 | 1.75 | 117.157 * | 51 | 65 |
| 11 | 1.75 | 400 | 70 | 70 |
| 12 | 1.75 | 400 | 67 | 70 |
| 13 | 1.75 | 682.843 * | 68 | 76 |
| 1 | 3 | 600 | 81 | 82 |
| 6 | 3 | 200 | 71 | 72 |
| 8 | 3.5177 | 400 | 87 | 78 |
* Stirring speed as suggested by Design Expert and Round off to 117 and 683. (* Factor concentration was set to zero as −0.0177 was practically not possible).
Model summary statistics of selected responses.
| Source | Sequential | Lack of Fit | Adjusted R2 | Predicted R2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EE | Linear | <0.0001 | 0.0099 | 0.8647 | 0.7782 | |
| 2FI | 0.5946 | 0.0078 | 0.8546 | 0.7224 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Cubic | 0.2201 | 0.1550 | 0.9800 | 0.7613 | Aliased | |
| In vitro mucoadhesion | Linear | 0.0006 | 0.0003 | 0.7318 | 0.5625 | |
| 2FI | 0.8351 | 0.0002 | 0.7035 | 0.5066 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Cubic | 0.0124 | 0.2826 | 0.9951 | 0.9614 | Aliased |
Model (quadratic) fit summary of the responses.
| Parameter | PS | EE |
|---|---|---|
| Std. Dev. | 1.92 | 2.44 |
| Mean | 65.31 | 64.31 |
| C.V. % | 2.94 | 3.80 |
| Adeq. Precision | 30.2872 | 35.6278 |
|
| 2.98 | 9.36 |
|
| 0.1595 | 0.0779 |
| Model F-value | 90.29 | 116.97 |
| Model | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
ANOVA coefficients table for both the responses.
| Intercept | A | B | AB | A2 | B2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 68 |
|
| 1.25 | 0.3125 |
|
|
|
|
| 0.2347 | 0.6810 |
| |
|
| 70.4 |
|
| 1 |
| 0.3 |
|
|
|
| 0.4396 |
| 0.7553 |
Figure 3Response surface graphs for EE and in vitro mucoadhesion (3-dimensional and contour).
Figure 4(a) Overlay plot and (b) desirability bar graph for an optimized result.
Figure 5SEM of the optimized formulation at various magnifications.
Figure 6In vitro dissolution study for control (pure glibenclamide), G-TO-M, and G-STO-M.
Figure 7Cell viability studies.
Figure 8X-ray radiograms (a) before administering (b–d), showing mucoadhesion of G-STO-M at 1, 4, and 8 h, correspondingly.
Figure 9Results of oral glucose tolerance test (* p < 0.05).
Total work plan interns of coded and real values of selected parameters and constraints of dependent factors for central composite design.
| Selected Formulation Factors | Levels | Responses/Dependent Variables | Constraints | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1.414 | −1 | 0 | +1 | +1.414 | |||
| Concentration of STO (%)-X1 | 0.00 | 0.5 | 1.75 | 3 | 3.5177 | EE (%) | Maximum |
| Stirring speed (rpm)-X2 | 117.157 | 200 | 600 | 682.843 | In vitro mucoadhesion (%) | Maximum | |