Advertisement

AAPS PharmSciTech

, 20:29 | Cite as

Systematic Evaluation of a Diclofenac-Loaded Carboxymethyl Cellulose-Based Wound Dressing and Its Release Performance with Changing pH and Temperature

  • Tina MaverEmail author
  • Lidija Gradišnik
  • Dragica Maja Smrke
  • Karin Stana KleinschekEmail author
  • Uroš MaverEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Development of drug-loaded wound dressings is often performed without systematic consideration of the changing wound environment that can influence such materials’ performance. Among the crucial changes are the wound pH and temperature, which have an immense effect on the drug release. Detailed release studies based on the consideration of these changing properties provide an important aspect of the in vitro performance testing of novel wound dressing materials. A sodium carboxymethyl cellulose-based wound dressing, with the incorporated non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac, was developed and characterised in regard to its physico-chemical, structural and morphological properties. Further, the influence of pH and temperature were studied on the drug release. Finally, the biocompatibility of the wound dressing towards human skin cells was tested. Incorporation of diclofenac did not alter important properties (water retention value, air permeability) of the host material. Changes in the pH and temperature were shown to influence the release performance and have to be accounted for in the evaluation of such dressings. Furthermore, the knowledge about the potential changes of these parameters in the wound bed could be used potentially to predict, and potentially even to control the drug release from the developed wound dressing. The prepared wound dressing was also proven biocompatible towards human skin cells, making it interesting for potential future use in the clinics.

KEY WORDS

wound care controlled drug release pH change temperature change diclofenac 

Abbreviations

ADMEM

Advanced Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium

AQ

Aquacel™

ATR

Attenuated total reflectance-infrared

DCF

Diclofenac sodium

DMEM

Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium

FBS

Fetal bovine serum

HACAT

Aneuploid immortal keratinocyte cell line

MTT

(3(4,5 dimethylthiazolyl-2)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide

Na-CMC

Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose

NSAID

Non-steroid anti-inflammatory pain-killing drugs

PBS

Phosphate buffer solution

SEM

Scanning electron microscopy

SF

Human skin fibroblasts

T

Temperature

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Prof. Dr. Elsa Fabbretti for kindly providing us HACAT cells.

Funding Information

This study received financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency for Research Core Funding No. P2-0118, P3-0036 and P3-0371 and the financial support through Project No. Z2-8168.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Choi YS, Kang H, Kim DG, Cha SH, Lee JC. Mussel-inspired dopamine- and plant-based cardanol-containing polymer coatings for multifunctional filtration membranes. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2014;6(23):21297–307.  https://doi.org/10.1021/am506263s.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maver T, Maver U, Pivec T, Kurečič M, Peršin Z, Kleinschek KS. Bioactive polysaccharide materials for modern wound healing. Berlin: Springer; 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maver T, Smrke D, Kurečič M, Gradišnik L, Maver U, Kleinschek KS. Combining 3D printing and electrospinning for preparation of pain-relieving wound-dressing materials. J Sol-Gel Sci Technol. 2018:1–16.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pawar HV, Boateng JS, Ayensu I, Tetteh J. Multifunctional medicated lyophilised wafer dressing for effective chronic wound healing. J Pharm Sci. 2014;103(6):1720–33.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.23968.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Catanzano O, Docking R, Schofield P, Boateng J. Advanced multi-targeted composite biomaterial dressing for pain and infection control in chronic leg ulcers. Carbohydr Polym. 2017;172:40–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jung SM, Yoon GH, Lee HC, Shin HS. Chitosan nanoparticle/PCL nanofiber composite for wound dressing and drug delivery. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2015;26(4):252–63.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09205063.2014.996699.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moritz S, Wiegand C, Wesarg F, Hessler N, Müller FA, Kralisch D, et al. Active wound dressings based on bacterial nanocellulose as drug delivery system for octenidine. Int J Pharm. 2014;471(1–2):45–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2014.04.062.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Niiyama H, Kuroyanagi Y. Development of novel wound dressing composed of hyaluronic acid and collagen sponge containing epidermal growth factor and vitamin C derivative. J Artif Organs. 2014;17(1):81–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-013-0737-x. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abdelgawad AM, Hudson SM, Rojas OJ. Antimicrobial wound dressing nanofiber mats from multicomponent (chitosan/silver-NPs/polyvinyl alcohol) systems. Carbohydr Polym. 2014;100:166–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.12.043.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maver T, Kurečič M, Smrke DM, Kleinschek KS, Maver U. Electrospun nanofibrous CMC/PEO as a part of an effective pain-relieving wound dressing. J Sol-Gel Sci Technol. 2015;79:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10971-015-3888-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maver T, Gradišnik L, Kurečič M, Hribernik S, Smrke D, Maver U, et al. Layering of different materials to achieve optimal conditions for treatment of painful wounds. Int J Pharm. 2017;529:576–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maver T, Hribernik S, Mohan T, Smrke DM, Maver U, Stana-Kleinschek K. Functional wound dressing materials with highly tunable drug release properties. RSC Adv. 2015;5(95):77873–84.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA11972C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elias PM, Wakefield JS. Skin barrier function. Nutrition for healthy skin. Berlin: Springer; 2010. p. 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurabayashi H, Tamura K, Machida I, Kubota K. Inhibiting bacteria and skin pH in hemiplegia: effects of washing hands with acidic mineral water. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81(1):40–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schneider L, Korber A, Grabbe S, Dissemond J. Influence of pH on wound-healing: a new perspective for wound-therapy? Arch Dermatol Res. 2007;298(9):413–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lengheden A, Jansson L. pH effects on experimental wound healing of human fibroblasts in vitro. Eur J Oral Sci. 1995;103(3):148–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trengove NJ, Stacey MC, MacAuley S, Bennett N, Gibson J, Burslem F, et al. Analysis of the acute and chronic wound environments: the role of proteases and their inhibitors. Wound Repair Regen. 1999;7(6):442–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O'Meara S, Cullum N, Majid M, Sheldon T. Systematic reviews of wound care management:(3) antimicrobial agents for chronic wounds;(4) diabetic foot ulceration. Health Technol Assess (Winch, Eng). 2000;4(21):1–237.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stewart CM, Cole MB, Legan JD, Slade L, Vandeven MH, Schaffner DW. Staphylococcus aureus growth boundaries: moving towards mechanistic predictive models based on solute-specific effects. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002;68(4):1864–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thomas LV, Wimpenny JW, Davis JG. Effect of three preservatives on the growth of Bacillus cereus, Vero cytotoxigenic Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, on plates with gradients of pH and sodium chloride concentration. Int J Food Microbiol. 1993;17(4):289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Deery HG, Embil JM, Joseph WS, Karchmer AW, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(7):885–910.  https://doi.org/10.1086/424846.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahadevan SV, Garmel GM. An introduction to clinical emergency medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tsukada K, Tokunaga K, Iwama T, Mishima Y. The pH changes of pressure ulcers related to the healing process of wounds. Wounds. 1992;4(1):16–20.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Obata Y, Takayama K, Okabe H, Nagai T. Effect of cyclic monoterpenes on percutaneous absorption in the case of a water-soluble drug (diclofenac sodium). Drug Des Deliv. 1990;6(4):319–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maver T, Gradišnik L, Kurečič M, Hribernik S, Smrke DM, Maver U, et al. Layering of different materials to achieve optimal conditions for treatment of painful wounds. Int J Pharm. 2017;529(1–2):576–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.07.043.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pivec T, Peršin Z, Kolar M, Maver T, Dobaj A, Vesel A, et al. Modification of cellulose non-woven substrates for preparation of modern wound dressings. Text Res J. 2014;84(1):96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maver T, Maver U, Mostegel F, Grieser T, Spirk S, Smrke D, et al. Cellulose based thin films as a platform for drug release studies to mimick wound dressing materials. Cellulose. 2015;22(1):749–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-014-0515-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Horvat G, Xhanari K, Finšgar M, Gradišnik L, Maver U, Knez Ž, et al. Novel ethanol-induced pectin–xanthan aerogel coatings for orthopedic applications. Carbohydr Polym. 2017;166:365–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.03.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Finšgar M, Uzunalić AP, Stergar J, Gradišnik L, Maver U. Novel chitosan/diclofenac coatings on medical grade stainless steel for hip replacement applications. Sci Rep. 2016;6:26653.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26653.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mosmann T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods. 1983;65(1–2):55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dissemond J, Augustin M, Eming SA, Goerge T, Horn T, Karrer S, et al. Modern wound care - practical aspects of non-interventional topical treatment of patients with chronic wounds. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2014;12(7):541–54.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ddg.12351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Powers JG, Morton LM, Phillips TJ. Dressings for chronic wounds. Dermatol Ther. 2013;26(3):197–206.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dth.12055.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peršin Z, Maver U, Pivec T, Maver T, Vesel A, Mozetič M, et al. Novel cellulose based materials for safe and efficient wound treatment. Carbohydr Polym. 2014;100:55–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.03.082.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miyake A. The infrared spectrum of polyethylene terephthalate. I the effect of crystallization. J Polym Sci. 1959;38(134):479–95.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pol.1959.1203813419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thu HE, Zulfakar MH, Ng SF. Alginate based bilayer hydrocolloid films as potential slow-release modern wound dressing. Int J Pharm. 2012;434(1–2):375–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2012.05.044.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yates CC, Whaley D, Babu R, Zhang J, Krishna P, Beckman E, et al. The effect of multifunctional polymer-based gels on wound healing in full thickness bacteria-contaminated mouse skin wound models. Biomaterials. 2007;28(27):3977–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Laboratory for Characterization and Processing of PolymersUniversity of MariborMariborSlovenia
  2. 2.Faculty of Medicine, Department of PharmacologyUniversity of MariborMariborSlovenia
  3. 3.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of Maribor, Institute of Biomedical SciencesMariborSlovenia
  4. 4.University Medical Centre LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  5. 5.Graz University of TechnologyGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations