| Literature DB >> 35592306 |
Safirah Maheen1, Hina Younis1, Hafeez Ullah Khan1, Syed Salman Shafqat2, Sajed Ali3, Atta Ur Rehman4, Saliha Ilyas1, Muhammad Nadeem Zafar5, Syed Rizwan Shafqat6, Abul Kalam7,8, Ahmed A Al-Ghamdi9.
Abstract
Co-encapsulated econazole nitrate-triamcinolone acetonide loaded biocompatible, physically stable, and non-irritating mesoporous silica nanoparticles (EN-TA-loaded MSNs) were prepared and optimized by using a central composite rotatable design (CCRD) for providing better therapeutic efficacy against commonly prevailed resistant fungal infections. These drugs loaded MSNs can significantly overcome the deficiencies and problems like short duration of action, requirement of frequent administration, erythema, and burning sensation and irritation associated with conventional drug delivery systems. The stability of optimized drugs loaded MSNs prepared with 100 gm of oil at pH 5.6 with a stirring time of 2 h was confirmed from a zeta potential value of -25 mV. The remarkable compatibility of formulation ingredients was depicted by X-ray diffraction (XRD), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) spectra while scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and size analysis represented a very fine size distribution of nanoparticles ranging from 450-600 nm. The CCRD clearly predicted that the optimized parameters of drugs loaded MSNs have better values of percentage yield (85%), EN release (68%), and TA release (70%). Compared to pure drugs, the decreased cytotoxicity of EN-TA-loaded MSNs was quite evident because they showed a cell survival rate of 90%, while in the case of pure drugs, the survival rate was 85%. During in vivo antifungal testing against Candida albicans performed on three different groups, each consisting of six rabbits, the EN-TA-loaded MSNs were relatively superior in eradicating the fungal infection as a single animal exhibited a positive culture test. Rapid recovery of fungal infection and a better therapeutic effect of EN-TA-loaded MSN were quite evident in wound healing and histopathology studies. Likewise, on the 14th day, a larger inhibitory zone was measured for optimized nanoparticles (15.90 mm) compared to the suspension of pure drugs (13.90 mm). In skin irritation studies, MSNs did not show a grade of erythema compared to pure drugs, which showed a four-fold grade of erythema. As a result, MSNs loaded with combination therapy seem to have the potential of improving patient compliance and tolerability by providing enhanced synergistic antifungal effectiveness at a reduced dose with accelerated wound healing and reduced toxicity of therapeutics.Entities:
Keywords: econazole; histopathology; in vitro-in vivo antifungal; mesoporous silica nanoparticles; triamcinolone; wound healing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35592306 PMCID: PMC9112326 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2022.836678
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.545
Composition of various formulations designed by CCRD and results of percentage yield and drugs release.
| Formulation | Formulation variables | Results of responses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetable oil conc. (ml) | Stirring time (hours) | pH | Percentage yield (%) | EN release (%) | TA release (%) | |
| F1 | 65 | 2.00 | 4.47 | 48 ± 1.37 | 30 ± 3.56 | 35 ± 4.61 |
| F2 | 65 | 2.00 | 7.00 | 55 ± 1.91 | 50 ± 2.43 | 54 ± 2.86 |
| F3 | 30 | 3.00 | 5.50 | 38 ± 0.45 | 38 ± 1.45 | 42 ± 4.89 |
| F4 | 65 | 3.00 | 7.00 | 65 ± 3.74 | 52 ± 5.46 | 56 ± 2.34 |
| F5 | 100 | 3.00 | 5.50 | 70 ± 1.23 | 40 ± 3.79 | 43 ± 2.87 |
| F6 | 65 | 2.00 | 7.00 | 55 ± 1.53 | 50 ± 1.66 | 54 ± 3.76 |
| F7 | 65 | 1.00 | 7.00 | 45 ± 0.45 | 48 ± 5.98 | 51 ± 2.34 |
| F8 | 98 | 2.00 | 7.00 | 68 ± 3.61 | 50 ± 3.95 | 54 ± 3.66 |
| F9 | 65 | 2.00 | 7.00 | 55 ± 1.98 | 50 ± 1.95 | 54 ± 3.33 |
| F10 | 65 | 2.00 | 7.00 | 55 ± 0.45 | 50 ± 3.98 | 54 ± 1.84 |
| F11 | 100 | 3.00 | 8.50 | 68 ± 3.54 | 74 ± 1.45 | 84 ± 2.36 |
| F12 | 65 | 2.00 | 7.00 | 55 ± 1.21 | 50 ± 5.92 | 54 ± 1.92 |
| F13 | 100 | 2.00 | 8.50 | 75 ± 0.45 | 75 ± 1.45 | 79 ± 1.93 |
| F14 | 30 | 3.00 | 8.50 | 77 ± 1.52 | 74 ± 3.87 | 78 ± 4.67 |
| F15 | 30 | 1.00 | 5.50 | 40 ± 3.66 | 37 ± 4.12 | 43 ± 1.37 |
| F16 | 65 | 2.00 | 7.00 | 55 ± 1.21 | 50 ± 5.88 | 54 ± 3.27 |
| F17 | 65 | 2.00 | 8.60 | 58 ± 0.45 | 76 ± 1.94 | 80 ± 4.74 |
| F18 | 30 | 1.00 | 8.50 | 42 ± 3.45 | 72 ± 3.37 | 76 ± 2.84 |
| F19 | 65 | 2.00 | 7.00 | 55 ± 0.45 | 50 ± 1.97 | 54 ± 3.75 |
| F20 | 100 | 1.00 | 5.50 | 41 ± 1.17 | 36 ± 2.26 | 40 ± 2.75 |
Results of ANOVA for responses Y1, Y2 and Y3 from EN-TA loaded MSNs.
| Factors | Parameters | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage yield | Release of EN | Release of TA | ||||
|
| f-Value |
| f-Value |
| f-Value | |
| Model | 22.11 | 33.70 | <0.0001 | 586.94 | <0.0001 | 488.69 |
| X1-Oil concentration | <0.0001 | 3.95 | <0.0001 | 0.0196 | <0.0001 | 4.33 |
| X2-Stirring time | <0.0001 | 0.7387 | <0.0001 | 0.0005 | <0.0001 | 21.37 |
| X3-pH | <0.0001 | — | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 4,127.5 |
| X1X2 | — | — | 0.1351 | 0.1351 | 0.0272 | 6.68 |
| X1X3 | — | — | 0.0349 | 0.0349 | 0.0023 | 16.49 |
| X2X3 | — | — | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0947 | 3.41 |
| X1 2 | — | — | 0.1461 | 0.1461 | 0.0672 | 4.21 |
| X2 2 | — | — | 0.1773 | 0.1773 | 0.4727 | 0.5569 |
| X3 2 | — | — | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 196.51 |
Fit statistics data analysis for the effect of selected variables on the responses.
| Variables | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Std deviation | 6.45 | 0.8699 | 0.9577 |
| Mean | 57.00 | 52.80 | 56.95 |
| C.V% | 11.31 | 1.65 | 1.68 |
|
| 0.8056 | 0.9981 | 0.9977 |
| Adjusted | 0.7692 | 0.9964 | 0.9957 |
| Predicted | 0.5762 | 0.9743 | 0.9759 |
| Adeq precision | 19.7391 | 77.2559 | 71.6463 |
Level of components, experimental versus predicted results of PY, EN release, TA release, desirability factor, size, and ZP of optimized MSNs.
| Composition of optimized MSNs | MSNs responses | Exp. value | Predicted value | DF | Size (nm) | ZP (mv) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oil concentration (RPM) | 100 | PY | 85.3 | 88 | 0.891 | 450 ± 5.72 | -25 ± 1.23 |
| Stirring time (min) | 120 | EN release | 68.5 | 75.5 | 0.937 | — | — |
| pH | 5.6 | TA release | 70.5 | 75.5 | 0.906 | — | — |
Exp: Experimental, PE: prediction error, DF: desirability factor, ZP: zeta potential.
FIGURE 1(A) Size distribution and (B) zeta potential analysis of EN-TA loaded MSNs.
FIGURE 2(A) XRD and (B) FTIR spectra of econazole nitrate (EN), triamcinolone acetonide (TA), MSNs, and EN-TA loaded MSNs.
FIGURE 3(A) TGA and (B) DSC thermograms of econazole nitrate (EN), triamcinolone acetonide (TA), MSNs, and EN-TA loaded MSNs.
FIGURE 4SEM analysis of EN-TA-MSNs.
FIGURE 5In vitro antifungal study (A) and cytotoxicity study (B) of pure EN-TA suspension and EN-TA loaded MSNs.
Mean erythema scores found for various formulations and in vivo antifungal studies in three groups of rabbits.
| Sr. No. | Formulation and treated groups | Mean erythema scores |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Day | 7th Day | 14th Day | Rabbits having positive test/Total no of rabbits | Infected sites/Log CFU | ||
| 1 | Group II (Control group) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6/6 | 4.47 ± 0.61 |
| 2 | Group II (EN-TA suspension) | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4/6 | 3.53 ± 0.28 |
| 3 | Group II (EN-TA loaded MSNs) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1/6 | 0.21 ± 0.15 |
FIGURE 6Skin irritation studies and in vivo antifungal studies in control group (A), group treated with pure EN-TA suspension (B), and group treated with EN-TA loaded MSNs (C).
FIGURE 7The wound healing efficacy of pure EN-TA suspension (control group) and EN-TA loaded MSNs treated group.
FIGURE 8Histopathological changes in pure EN-TA suspension treated control group-I and in EN-TA loaded optimized MSNs treated group-II on day-1, day-3, day-7, and day-14.