4.4 Article

Dapsone-Loaded Invasomes as a Potential Treatment of Acne: Preparation, Characterization, and In Vivo Skin Deposition Assay

期刊

AAPS PHARMSCITECH
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 2174-2184

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1208/s12249-018-1025-0

关键词

dapsone; invasomes; terpenes; limonene; ex vivo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dapsone (DPS) is a unique sulfone with antibiotic and anti-inflammatory activity. Owing to its dual action, DPS has a great potential to treat acne. Topical DPS application is expected to be effective in treatment of mild to moderate acne conditions. Invasomes are novel vesicles composed of phosphatidylcholine, ethanol, and one or mixture of terpenes of enhanced percutaneous permeation. In this study, DPS-loaded invasomes were prepared using the thin film hydration technique. The effect of different terpenes (Limonene, Cineole, Fenchone, and Citral) in different concentrations on the properties of the prepared DPS-loaded invasomes was investigated using a full factorial experimental design, namely, the particle size, drug entrapment, and release efficiency. The optimized formulation was selected for morphological evaluation which showed spherical shaped vesicles. Further solid-state characterization using differential scanning calorimetry and X-ray diffractometry revealed that the drug was dispersed in an amorphous state within the prepared invasomes. Finally, the ability of the prepared DPS-loaded invasomes to deliver DPS through the skin was investigated in vivo using wistar rats. The maximum in vivo skin deposition amount of DPS was found to be 4.11 mcg/cm(2) for invasomes versus 1.71 mcg/cm(2) for the drug alcoholic solution, representing about 2.5-fold higher for the invasomes compared to the drug solution. The AUC0-10 calculated for DPS-loaded invasomes was nearly 2-fold greater than that of DPS solution (14.54 and 8.01 mcg.h/cm(2) for the optimized invasomes and DPS solution, respectively). These results reveal that the skin retention of DPS can be enhanced using invasomes.

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