4.6 Article

Hybrid Nanocomposites of Tenoxicam: Layered Double Hydroxides (LDHs) vs. Hydroxyapatite (HAP) Inorganic Carriers

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 28, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules28104035

关键词

tenoxicam; drug delivery; in vitro dissolution studies; LDHs; HAP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The search for effective systems for releasing poorly bioavailable drugs is a forefront topic in the pharmaceutical market. Hybrid nanocomposites of Tenoxicam with layered double hydroxides (LDHs) and hydroxyapatite (HAP) were obtained. Physicochemical characterization confirmed the formation of hybrids, but LDH showed low drug intercalation and did not improve the pharmacokinetic properties. On the other hand, the HAP-Tenoxicam hybrid exhibited excellent improvement in wettability, solubility, and release rate, delivering the entire daily dose in about 10 minutes.
The search for effective systems to facilitate the release of poorly bioavailable drugs is a forefront topic for the pharmaceutical market. Materials constituted by inorganic matrices and drugs represent one of the latest research strategies in the development of new drug alternatives. Our aim was to obtain hybrid nanocomposites of Tenoxicam, an insoluble nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, with both layered double hydroxides (LDHs) and hydroxyapatite (HAP). The physicochemical characterization on the base of X-ray powder diffraction, SEM/EDS, DSC and FT-IR measurements was useful to verify the possible hybrids formation. In both cases, the hybrids formed, but it seemed that the drug intercalation in LDH was low and, in fact, the hybrid was not effective in improving the pharmacokinetic properties of the drug alone. On the contrary, the HAP-Tenoxicam hybrid, compared to the drug alone and to a simple physical mixture, showed an excellent improvement in wettability and solubility and a very significant increase in the release rate in all the tested biorelevant fluids. It delivers the entire daily dose of 20 mg in about 10 min.

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

4.6
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