| Literature DB >> 35631546 |
Juan M Galdopórpora1, Camila Martinena2, Ezequiel Bernabeu1,3,4, Jennifer Riedel1,4, Lucia Palmas5, Ines Castangia5, Maria Letizia Manca5, Mariana Garcés6, Juan Lázaro-Martinez7, Maria Jimena Salgueiro3, Pablo Evelson6, Nancy Liliana Tateosian2, Diego Andres Chiappetta1,3,4, Marcela Analia Moretton1,3,4.
Abstract
Among respiratory infections, tuberculosis was the second deadliest infectious disease in 2020 behind COVID-19. Inhalable nanocarriers offer the possibility of actively targeting anti-tuberculosis drugs to the lungs, especially to alveolar macrophages (cellular reservoirs of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis). Our strategy was based on the development of a mannose-decorated micellar nanoformulation based in Soluplus® to co-encapsulate rifampicin and curcumin. The former is one of the most effective anti-tuberculosis first-line drugs, while curcumin has demonstrated potential anti-mycobacterial properties. Mannose-coated rifampicin (10 mg/mL)-curcumin (5 mg/mL)-loaded polymeric micelles (10% w/v) demonstrated excellent colloidal properties with micellar size ~108 ± 1 nm after freeze-drying, and they remain stable under dilution in simulated interstitial lung fluid. Drug-loaded polymeric micelles were suitable for drug delivery to the deep lung with lung accumulation, according to the in vitro nebulization studies and the in vivo biodistribution assays of radiolabeled (99mTc) polymeric micelles, respectively. Hence, the nanoformulation did not exhibit hemolytic potential. Interestingly, the addition of mannose significantly improved (5.2-fold) the microbicidal efficacy against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv of the drug-co-loaded systems in comparison with their counterpart mannose-free polymeric micelles. Thus, this novel inhaled nanoformulation has demonstrated its potential for active drug delivery in pulmonary tuberculosis therapy.Entities:
Keywords: Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Soluplus®; active drug targeting; curcumin; inhalable nanoformulation; polymeric micelles; rifampicin; tuberculosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35631546 PMCID: PMC9145552 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14050959
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.525
Figure 1ATR-FTIR spectra for gelatin (A), mannose-modified gelatin (B), physical mixture of gelatin with 5% mannose (C) and mannose (D).
Figure 21H-NMR spectra for gelatin (A), mannose-modified gelatin (B) and mannose (C) dissolved in D2O. Different regions are shown for each of the samples for better understanding. The hydrogens of the α- and β-anomers for D-mannose are drawn with different colors for the assignments of the NMR signals.
Micellar size and size distribution (PDI) of Soluplus® micelles and Soluplus® (man)micelles (10% w/v) in presence and absence of Con A after incubation (2 h) at 25 °C. Data are expressed as mean ± S.D. (n = 5).
| Dh (nm) (±SD) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | Con A | PDI (±SD) | Peak 1 | Intensity (%) | Peak 2 | Intensity (%) | Peak 3 | Intensity (%) |
| Soluplus® | - | 0.205 (0.006) | 158.1 (3.5) | 100.0 | - | - | - | - |
| + | 0.201 (0.005) | 161.8 (4.6) | 100.0 | |||||
| Soluplus® (man)micelles | - | 0.275 (0.013) | 270.1 (31.3) | 100.0 | - | - | - | - |
| + | 0.359 (0.008) | 246.5 (5.1) | 94.2 | 4370 (392) | 5.3 | 11.2 (19.4) | 0.6 | |
Figure 3TEM micrograph of RIF–CUR (10 mg/mL and 5 mg/mL)-(man)(0.7% w/v)-micelles (10% w/v). Red arrows point out the polymeric micelles. Scale bar: 100 nm. Photo Inset: (a) Magnification of TEM micrograph and (b) macroscopic aspect of the drug-loaded micellar dispersion after re-dispersion in distilled water.
Micellar size and size distribution (PDI) of free and drug-loaded Solupus micelles (10% w/v) with and without mannose at 25 °C, before and after lyophilization. Data are expressed as mean ± S.D. (n = 5).
| Nanoformulation | Gel(man) | Before Lyophilization | After Lyophilization | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size (nm) (±S.D.) | PDI (±S.D.) | Size (nm) (±S.D.) | PDI (±S.D.) | ||
| Drug-free-micelles | - | 114.1 (1.2) | 0.194 (0.002) | 124.0 (1.3) | 0.217 (0.006) |
| Drug-free-(man)micelles | 0.25 | 137.2 (4.1) | 0.213 (0.009) | 127.4 (0.3) | 0.257 (0.006) |
| 0.5 | 149.1 (1.8) | 0.226 (0.003) | 145.6 (4.4) | 0.264 (0.007) | |
| 0.7 | 287.6 (28.3) | 0.414 (0.015) | 164.5 (6.7) | 0.257 (0.009) | |
| 1.0 | 345.0 (68.7) | 0.444 (0.003) | 120.6 (4.7) | 0.207 (0.009) | |
| RIF–CUR-micelles | - | 82.2 (1.7) | 0.221 (0.007) | 81.2 (2.1) | 0.138 (0.020) |
| RIF–CUR-(man)micelles | 0.25 | 122.2 (3.7) | 0.224 (0.003) | 113.7 (1.7) | 0.215 (0.011) |
| 0.5 | 147.8 (4.6) | 0.244 (0.010) | 101.8 (3.8) | 0.218 (0.009) | |
| 0.7 | 197.6 (7.4) | 0.312 (0.042) | 108.1 (0.9) | 0.208 (0.001) | |
| 1.0 | 360.2 (11.2) | 0.288 (0.004) | 366.7 (5.5) | 0.424 (0.011) | |
Micellar size and size distribution of the RIF(10 mg/mL)-CUR (5 mg/mL)-loaded micelles (10% w/v) with and without mannose at 37°C in simulated interstitial lung medium (SILF, pH 7.4, sample dilution 1/50) over 24 h. Data are expressed as mean ± S.D. (n = 5).
| Nanoformulation | Time (h) | Size (nm) (±S.D.) | PDI (±S.D.) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peak 1 | Intensity (%) | |||
| RIF–CUR-micelles | 0 | 56.04 (0.48) | 100.0 | 0.044 (0.007) |
| 1 | 58.15 (0.51) | 100.0 | 0.040 (0.008) | |
| 2 | 58.09 (0.08) | 100.0 | 0.042 (0.009) | |
| 3 | 57.49 (0.51) | 100.0 | 0.037 (0.011) | |
| 24 | 62.69 (0.45) | 100.0 | 0.056 (0.008) | |
| RIF–CUR-(man)micelles | 0 | 61.26 (0.65) | 100.0 | 0.103 (0.016) |
| 1 | 61.35 (0.27) | 100.0 | 0.068 (0.008) | |
| 2 | 61.44 (0.36) | 100.0 | 0.075 (0.011) | |
| 3 | 60.08 (0.37) | 100.0 | 0.063 (0.004) | |
| 24 | 68.13 (1.10) | 100.0 | 0.080 (0.009) | |
Total mass output (TMO%), fine particle dose (FPD, mg), fine particle fraction (FPF, %) and mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) of nanosystems nebulized by using the next generation impactor (NGI). FPD and FPF values are shown as mean ± S.D. of three experiments; MMAD values are shown as mean ± geometric standard deviation.
| Sample | Total Mass Output (%) | Fine Particle Dose (FPD) (mg) | Fine Particle Fraction (FPF) (%) | Aerodynamic Diameter |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RIF | 86 ± 6 | 8 ± 3 | 46 ± 4 | 1.27 ± 1.18 |
| CUR | 88 ± 7 | 2 ± 0.5 | 19 ± 3 | 2.18 ± 1.70 |
| RIF + CUR | 89 ± 12 | 8 ± 2 | 30 ± 4 | 2.52 ± 1.88 |
| RIF-micelles | 100 ± 3 | 15 ± 2 | 75 ± 15 | 1.26 ± 1.17 |
| CUR-micelles | 89 ± 2 | 5 ± 1 | 57 ± 6 | 2.14 ± 1.68 |
| RIF–CUR-micelles | 83 ± 6 | 15 ± 3 | 62 ± 9 | 1.65 ± 1.41 |
| RIF–CUR-(man)micelles | 81 ± 7 | 13 ± 2 | 52 ± 6 | 2.10 ± 1.66 |
Antioxidant activity of nanoformulations (drug-free, RIF-micelles, RIF–CUR-micelles and RIF–CUR-(man)micelles) and drugs dispersion (CUR, RIF and RIF + CUR), calculated as the inhibition percentage of ABTS radical. Data are expressed as mean ± S.D. (n = 6).
| Sample | Total Antioxidant Capacity | ABTS˙ Inhibition (%) |
|---|---|---|
| RIF | 938.0 ± 212.0 | 5.5 ± 0.6 |
| CUR | 2239.0 ± 153.0 | 18.6 ± 1.6 |
| RIF+ CUR | 4523.0 ± 214.0 | 35.5 ± 1.7 |
| Drug-free micelles | ND | ND |
| RIF-micelles | 3918.0 ± 104.0 # | 16.0 ± 0.4 |
| RIF–CUR-micelles | 23,075.0 ± 205.0 * | 99.0 ± 1.0 |
| RIF–CUR-(man)micelles | 20,404.0 ± 663.0 * | 99.0 ± 6.0 |
Note: Multiple comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons post-hoc test. ND: not detected. * p < 0.0001 vs. RIF, CUR, drug-free micelles and RIF-micelles. # p < 0.05 vs. RIF.
Antioxidant activity of nanoformulations (drug-free, RIF-micelles, RIF–CUR-micelles and RIF–CUR-(man)micelles) and drugs solutions (CUR, RIF and RIF + CUR), calculated as the inhibition percentage of DDPH radical. Data are expressed as mean ± S.D. (n = 6).
| Sample | Total Antioxidant Capacity | DPPH˙ Inhibition (%) |
|---|---|---|
| RIF | 595.0 ± 76.0 | 18.6 ± 2.9 |
| CUR | 2678.0 ± 193.0 # | 49.7 ± 7.4 |
| RIF + CUR | 3440.0 ± 5.7 | 96.2 ± 0.7 |
| Drug-free micelles | ND | 1.0 ± 0.4 |
| RIF-micelles | 120.0 ± 37.0 | 25.2 ± 5.6 |
| RIF–CUR-micelles | 3633.0 ± 68.0 * | 75.6 ± 1.3 |
| RIF–CUR-(man)micelles | 3302.0 ± 83.0 * | 61.6 ± 1.8 |
Note: Multiple comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons post-hoc test. ND: not detected. * p < 0.0001 vs. RIF, drug-free micelles and RIF-micelles. # p < 0.05 vs. RIF–CUR-micelles and RIF–CUR-(man)micelles.
Figure 4In vitro RIF and CUR release profiles from RIF–CUR-micelles and RIF–CUR-(man)micelles (10% w/v) at pH 7.4 (SILF, 37 °C) over 24 h. Results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (S.D.) (n = 3). RIF and CUR concentrations were 10 mg/mL and 5 mg/mL, respectively.
Figure 5Percentages of hemolysis of RIF, drug-free-(man)micelles and RIF–CUR-(man)micelles at various concentrations after incubation for 3 h at 37 °C. Results are expressed as mean ± S.D. (n = 3).
Figure 6Biodistribution of 99mTc radiolabeled Soluplus® (man)micelles (1.85 MBq). Static images were acquired 1 (A) and 24 h (B) post intratracheal administration by means of a surgical puncture tracheotomy. Anesthesia: isofluorane. After 24 h post-administration, almost 100% of the 99mTc (man)micelles of the intratracheal route remained in the lungs (color intensity in the image is not corrected by physical decay of the signal).
Figure 7Intracellular survival of Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv in RIF-(10 mg/mL) micelles (10% w/v), RIF–CUR (10 mg/mL and 5 mg/mL)-micelles, RIF–CUR (10 mg/mL and 5 mg/mL)-(man)micelles and drug-free-micelles treated THP-1 cells. Macrophages derived from THP-1 cells line (1 × 106 cells/mL) were infected with Mtb H37Rv (MOI: 10). After 2 h of infection, the culture medium was replaced, and cells were cultured with RIF-micelles (5 μg/mL), RIF–CUR-micelles (5 μg/mL and 2.5 μg/mL) or RIF–CUR-(man)micelles (5 μg/mL and 2.5 μg/mL) for 48 h. Then, cells were washed and lysed for mycobacterial colony-forming units (CFU) determination. Data are presented as means of bacterial viability (CFU expressed as percentage of the control) ± standard error of the mean (SEM), * p < 0.05; φ p < 0.001; ψ p < 0.001. p values were calculated using one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey’s multiple comparisons test.