4.7 Article

Influence of surfactants in self-microemulsifying formulations on enhancing oral bioavailability of oxyresveratrol: Studies in Caco-2 cells and in vivo

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 498, 期 1-2, 页码 294-303

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2015.12.002

关键词

Self-microemulsifying drug delivery system; SMEDDS; Surfactants; Caco-2 cells; Oral absorption; Oxyresveratrol

资金

  1. Thailand Research Fund [BRG 5580004]
  2. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Self-microemulsifying drug delivery systems (SMEDDS) containing two types (Tween80 (R) and Labrasol (R)) and two levels (low; 5% and high; 15%) of co-surfactants were formulated to evaluate the impact of surfactant phase on physical properties and oral absorption of oxyresveratrol (OXY). All formulations showed a very rapid release in the simulated gastric fluid (SGF) pH 1.2. After dilution with different media, the microemulsion droplet sizes of the Tween80 (R)-based (similar to 26 to 36 nm) were smaller than that of the Labrasol (R)-based systems (similar to 34 to 45 nm). Both systems with high levels of surfactant increased the Caco-2 cells permeability of OXY compared to those with low levels of surfactant (1.4-1.7 folds) and the unformulated OXY (1.9-2.0 folds). It was of interest, that there was a reduction (4.4-5.3 folds) in the efflux transport of OXY from both systems compared to the unformulated OXY. The results were in good agreement with the in vivo absorption studies of such OXY-formulations in rats. Significantly greater values of Cmax and AUC(0-10h) (p < 0.05) were obtained from the high levels of Tween80 (R)-based (F-r, (0-10h) 786.32%) compared to those from the Labrasol (R)-based system (F-r,F- 0-10h 218.32%). These finding indicate the importance of formulation variables such as type and quantity of surfactant in the SMEDDS to enhance oral drug bioavailability. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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