Non-ionic Surfactant Based In Situ Forming Vesicles as Controlled Parenteral Delivery Systems
- 189 Downloads
Non-ionic surfactant (NIS) based in situ forming vesicles (ISVs) present an affordable alternative to the traditional systems for the parenteral control of drug release. In this work, NIS based ISVs encapsulating tenoxicam were prepared using the emulsion method. Tenoxicam-loaded ISVs were prepared using a 22.31 full factorial experimental design, where three factors were evaluated as independent variables; type of NIS (A), molar ratio of NIS to Tween®80 (B), and phase ratio of the internal ethyl acetate to the external Captex® oil phase (C). Percentage drug released after 1 h, particle size of the obtained vesicles and mean dissolution time were chosen as the dependent variables. Selected formulation was subjected to morphological investigation, injectability, viscosity measurements, and solid state characterization. Optimum formulation showed spherical nano-vesicles in the size of 379.08 nm with an initial drug release of 37.32% in the first hour followed by a sustained drug release pattern for 6 days. DSC analysis of the optimized formulation confirmed the presence of the drug in an amorphous form with the nano-vesicles. Biological evaluation of the selected formulation was performed on New Zealand rabbits by IM injection. The prepared ISVs exhibited a 45- and 28-fold larger AUC and MRT values, respectively, compared to those of the drug suspension. The obtained findings boost the use of ISVs for the treatment of many chronic inflammatory conditions.
KEY WORDSin situ forming vesicles non-ionic surfactants intramuscular emulsion anti-inflammatory
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All animal procedures were performed according to the protocols reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 1.Luan X. Biodegradable microparticle and in situ microparticle systems. Berlin: Freie Universität; 2006.Google Scholar
- 3.Sankar V, Ruckmani K, Durga S, Jailani S. Proniosomes as drug carriers. Pak J Pharm Sci. 2010;23:103–7.Google Scholar
- 6.Negi LM, Garg AK, Chauhan M. Ultradeformable vesicles: concept and execution. Pharma Times. 2009;41(9):11–4.Google Scholar
- 7.Sankar V, Ruckmani K, Jailani S, Ganesan KS, Sharavanan S. Niosome drug delivery system: advances and medical applications an overview. Pharmacol Online. 2009;2:926–32.Google Scholar
- 9.Kushwaha SK, Keshari RK, Rai A. Advances in nasal trans-mucosal drug delivery. J Appl Pharm Sci. 2011;1(7):21–8.Google Scholar
- 16.Bouwstra JA, Van HD, Hofland HE. Preparation and characterization of nonionic surfactant vesicles. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp. 1997;80:123–4.Google Scholar
- 17.Rangasamy M, Ayyasamy B, Raju S, Develly SG, Shaik S. Formulation and in vitro evaluation of noisome encapsulated acyclovir. J Pharm Res. 2008;1:163–6.Google Scholar
- 18.Bhaskaran S, Lakshmi PK. Comparative evaluation of niosome formulations prepared by different techniques. Acta Pharm Sci. 2009;51:27–32.Google Scholar
- 19.Wadhe K, Kalsait R, Umekar M. Alternate drug delivery system: recent advancement and future challenges. Arch Pharm Sci Res. 2009;1:97–105.Google Scholar
- 20.Bajaj A, Desai M. Challenges and strategies in novel drug delivery technologies. Pharm Times. 2006;38:6–12.Google Scholar
- 22.Bird H, Hill J, Lowe J, Wright V. A double-blind comparison of tenoxicam (Tilcotil, Mobiflex) at two doses against ibuprofen in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur J Rheumatol Inflamm. 1983;7(2):28–32.Google Scholar
- 24.Morof O, Herrmann T, Roth M, editors. Effect of tenoxicam and two of its main metabolites—5′-OH tenoxicam and 6 ″-OH tenoxicam—on prostaglandin H synthase and release of leukotriene B4 from human PMNLs. Manila: Sixth South East Asia and Pacific League against Rheumatism Congress of Rheumatology; 1988.Google Scholar
- 27.Brittain HG. Analytical profiles of drug substances and excipients. Cambridge: Academic Press; 1994.Google Scholar
- 33.Peppas NA. Analysis of Fickian and non-Fickian drug release from polymers. Pharm Acta Helv. 1985;60(4):110–1.Google Scholar
- 35.Shamma RN, Elkasabgy NA, Mahmoud AA, Gawdat SI, Kataia MM, Abdel Hamid MA. Design of novel injectable in-situ forming scaffolds for non-surgical treatment of periapical lesions: in-vitro and in-vivo evaluation. Int J Pharm. 2017;521(1–2):306–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.02.058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Leroux L, Hatim Z, Freche M, Lacout JL. Effects of various adjuvants (lactic acid, glycerol, and chitosan) on the injectability of a calcium phosphate cement. Bone. 25(2 Suppl):31S–4S.Google Scholar
- 40.U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Inactive ingredient search for approved drug products: ethyl acetate. 2017 [cited 2017 August]; Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/iig/getiigWEB.cfm.
- 42.Ahmed TA, Ibrahim HM, Khalifa S, Samy AM, Kaseem A, Nutan MT, et al. Controlled release of haloperidol from biodegradable injectable in situ implant and microparticle formulations. AAPS J. 12(77):S2.Google Scholar
- 43.Tice TR, Staas JK, Ferrell TM, Markland P. Injectable buprenorphine microparticle compositions and their use. Google Patents; 2008.Google Scholar
- 45.Yapar EA, İnal Ö, Özkan Y, Baykara T. Injectable in situ forming microparticles: a novel drug delivery system. Trop J Pharm Res. 11(2):307–18.Google Scholar
- 48.Ijeoma FU, Suresh PV. Non-ionic surfactant based vesicles (niosomes) in drug delivery. Int J Pharm. 1998;172(1–2):33–70.Google Scholar
- 50.Ibrahim MA. Tenoxicam-Kollicoat IR® binary systems: physicochemical and biological evaluation. Acta Pol Pharm. 2014;71(4):647–59.Google Scholar
- 54.Salama HA, Ghorab M, Mahmoud AA, Abdel Hady M. PLGA Nanoparticles as subconjunctival injection for management of glaucoma. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-017-0710-8.