4.7 Article

Biodegradable polymeric nanoparticles for oral delivery of epirubicin: In vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo investigations

期刊

COLLOIDS AND SURFACES B-BIOINTERFACES
卷 128, 期 -, 页码 448-456

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.02.043

关键词

Epirubicin; PLGA NPs; Cellular uptake; Cellular transport; Intestinal transport; Oral bioavailability

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Govt. of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epirubicin (EPI) is an anthracycline antineoplastic agent, commercially available for intravenous administration only and its oral ingestion continues to remain a challenge. Present investigation is aimed at the development of poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) nanoparticles (NPs) for oral bioavailability enhancement of epirubicin. Developed formulation revealed particle size, 235.3 +/- 15.12 nm, zeta potential, -27.5 +/- 0.7 mV and drug content (39.12 +/- 2.13 mu g/mg), with spherical shape and smooth surface. Cytotoxicity studies conducted on human breast adenocarcinoma cell lines (MCF-7) confirmed the superiority of epirubicin loaded poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid nanoparticles (EPI-NPs) over free epirubicin solution (EPI-S). Further, flow cytometric analysis demonstrated improved drug uptake through EPI-NPs and elucidated the dominance of caveolae mediated endocytosis for nanoparticles uptake. Transport study accomplished on human colon adenocarcinoma cell line (Caco-2) showed 2.76 fold improvement in permeability for EPI-NPs as compared to EPI-S (p<0.001) whereas a 4.49 fold higher transport was observed on rat ileum; a 1.8 fold higher (p<0.01) in comparison to Caco-2 cell lines which confirms the significant role of Peyer's patches in absorption enhancement. Furthermore, in vivo pharmacokinetic studies also revealed 3.9 fold improvement in oral bioavailability of EPI through EPI-NPs. Henceforth, EPI-NPs is a promising approach to replace pre-existing intravenous therapy thus providing patient care at home (C) 2015 Published 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