4.4 Article

Novel Drug Delivery Approach via Self-Microemulsifying Drug Delivery System for Enhancing Oral Bioavailability of Asenapine Maleate: Optimization, Characterization, Cell Uptake, and In Vivo Pharmacokinetic Studies

期刊

AAPS PHARMSCITECH
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1208/s12249-018-1212-z

关键词

Asenapine maleate; Self-microemulsifying drug delivery system (SMEDDS); Cell uptake; Bioavailability enhancement

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Asenapine maleate (AM)-loaded self-microemulsifying drug delivery system (AM-SMEDDS) was prepared to increase its oral bioavailability. AM-SMEDDS was developed using Capryol 90, Cremophor EL, and Transcutol HP as oil, surfactant, and cosurfactant, respectively, by spontaneous emulsification method. Pseudoternary diagram showed maximum region at 3:1 ratio of Cremophor EL/Transcutol HP. The AM-SMEDDS showed globule size and zeta potential of 21.11.2nm and -19.31.8mV, respectively. Globules were found to be of spherical shape and uniformly distributed by transmission electron microscopy. In vitro drug release study showed 99.2 +/- 3.3% of drug release at the end of 8h in phosphate buffer pH 6.8. Ex vivo drug release study showed only 15% of drug diffusion through stomach and similar to 85% drug was diffused through intestinal membrane. Confocal and flow cytometry study showed that cellular uptake of coumarin-6 loaded SMEDDS was significantly enhanced by Caco-2 cells as that of coumarin-6 solution. The relative bioavailability of AM-SMEDDS was found to be 23.53 times greater than AM suspension. Intestinal lymphatic transport study using Cycloheximide(CHX) showed that the AUC(total) of AM-SMEDDS reduced about 35.67% compared with that without the treatment ofCHX indicating involvement of lymphatic system in intestinal absorption of AM-loaded SMEDDS. These findings demonstrated the potential of SMEDDS for oral bioavailability improvement of AM via lymphatic uptake.

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

4.4
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