4.7 Article

Rationally designed nanocarriers for intranasal therapy of allergic rhinitis: influence of carrier type on in vivo nasal deposition

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NANOMEDICINE
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 2345-2357

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S98547

关键词

allergic rhinitis; nanocapsules; triamcinolone acetonide; nasal mucosa; nasal deposition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study is to develop a locally acting nasal delivery system of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) for the maintenance therapy of allergic rhinitis. The effect of encapsulating TA in different nanocarriers on its mucosal permeation and retention as well as in vivo nasal deposition has been studied. A comparative study was established between polymeric oil core nanocapsules (NCs), lipid nanocarriers such as nanoemulsion (NE), and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs). The elaborated nanocarriers were compared with TA suspension and the commercially available suspension Nasacort (R). The study revealed that NC provided the highest mucosal retention, as 46.14%+/- 0.048% of the TA initial dose was retained after 24 hours, while showing the least permeation through the nasal mucosa. On the other hand, for TA suspension and Nasacort (R), the mucosal retention did not exceed 23.5%+/- 0.047% of the initial dose after 24 hours. For NE and NLC, values of mucosal retention were 19.4%+/- 0.041% and 10.97%+/- 0.13%, respectively. NC also showed lower mucosal irritation and superior stability compared with NE. The in vivo nasal deposition study demonstrated that NC maintained drug in its site of action (nasal cavity mucosa) for the longest period of time. The elaborated polymeric oil core NCs are efficient carriers for the administration of nasally acting TA as it produced the least permeation results, thus decreasing systemic absorption of TA. Although NCs have been administered via various routes, this is the first study to implement the polymeric oil core NC as an efficient carrier for localized nasal drug delivery.

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