4.7 Article

Solid lipid nanoparticles for nose to brain delivery of haloperidol: in vitro drug release and pharmacokinetics evaluation

期刊

ACTA PHARMACEUTICA SINICA B
卷 4, 期 6, 页码 454-463

出版社

INST MATERIA MEDICA, CHINESE ACAD MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2014.10.005

关键词

Brain targeting; Haloperidol; Intranasal route; Pharmacokinetics; Solid lipid nanoparticles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, haloperidol (HP)-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) were prepared to enhance the uptake of HP to brain via intranasal (i.n.) delivery. SLNs were prepared by a modified emulsification-diffusion technique and evaluated for particle size, zeta potential, drug entrapment efficiency, in vitro drug release, and stability. All parameters were found to be in an acceptable range. In vitro drug release was found to be 94.16 +/- 4.78% after 24 h and was fitted to the Higuchi model with a very high correlation coefficient (R-2 = 0.9941). Pharmacokinetics studies were performed on albino Wistar rats and the concentration of HP in brain and blood was measured by high performance liquid chromatography. The brain/blood ratio at 0.5 h for HP-SLNs i.n., HP sol. i.n. and HP sol. i.v. was 1.61, 0.17 and 0.031, respectively, indicating direct nose-to-brain transport, bypassing the blood-brain barrier. The maximum concentration (C-max) in brain achieved from i.n. administration of HP-SLNs (329.17 +/- 20.89 ng/mL, T-max 2 h) was significantly higher than that achieved after i.v. (76.95 +/- 7.62 ng/mL, T-max 1 h), and i.n. (90.13 +/- 6.28 ng/mL, T-max 2 h) administration of HP sol. The highest drug-targeting efficiency (2362.43%) and direct transport percentage (95.77%) was found with HP-SLNs as compared to the other formulations. Higher DTE (%) and DTP (%) suggest that HP-SLNs have better brain targeting efficiency as compared to other formulations. (C) 2014 Chinese Pharmaceutical Association and Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据