4.4 Article

In vitro lipolysis tests on lipid nanoparticles: comparison between lipase/co-lipase and pancreatic extract

Journal

DRUG DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL PHARMACY
Volume 41, Issue 10, Pages 1582-1588

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/03639045.2014.972412

Keywords

Digestion; labrafac; nanostructured lipid carriers; precirol; solid lipid nanoparticles

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLC) are lipid nanocarriers aimed to the delivery of drugs characterized by a low bioavailability, such as poorly water-soluble drugs and peptides or proteins. The oral administration of these lipid nanocarriers implies the study of their lipolysis in presence of enzymes that are commonly involved in dietary lipid digestion in the gastrointestinal tract. In this study, a comparison between two methods was performed: on one hand, the lipase/co-lipase assay, commonly described in the literature to study the digestion of lipid nanocarriers, and on the other hand, the lipolysis test using porcine pancreatic extract and the pH-stat apparatus. This pancreatic extract contains both the pancreatic lipase and carboxyl ester hydrolase (CEH) that permit to mimic in a biorelevant manner the duodenal digestive lipolysis. The test was performed by means of a pH-stat apparatus to work at constant pH, 5.5 or 6.25, representing respectively the fasted or fed state pH conditions. The evolution of all acylglycerol entities was monitored during the digestion by sampling the reaction vessel at different time points, until 60 min, and the lipid composition of the digest was analyzed by gas chromatography. SLN and NLC systems obtained with long-chain saturated acylglycerols were rapidly and completely digested by pancreatic enzymes. The pH-stat titration method appears to be a powerful technique to follow the digestibility of these solid lipid-based nanoparticles.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available