4.7 Article

Films loaded with insulin-coated nanoparticles (ICNP) as potential platforms for peptide buccal delivery

期刊

COLLOIDS AND SURFACES B-BIOINTERFACES
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 38-45

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.05.025

关键词

Buccal delivery; Insulin-coated nanoparticles; Protein and peptide delivery; Permeation enhancement

资金

  1. Fulbright-CONICYT from CONICYT, Chile [15086040]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of this investigation was to develop films containing insulin-coated nanoparticles and evaluate their performance in vitro as potential peptide delivery systems. To incorporate insulin into the films, a new antisolvent co-precipitation fabrication process was adapted to obtain insulin-coated nanoparticles (ICNPs). The ICNPs were embedded in polymeric films containing a cationic polymethacrylate derivative (ERL) or a combination of ERL with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC). ICNP-loaded films were characterized for morphology, mucoadhesion, and insulin release. Furthermore, in vitro insulin permeation was evaluated using a cultured tridimensional human buccal mucosa model. The antisolvent co-precipitation method was successfully adapted to obtain ICNPs with 40% (w/w) insulin load, achieving 323 +/- 8 nm particles with a high zeta potential of 32.4 +/- 0.8 mV, indicating good stability. High yields were obtained after manufacture and the insulin content did not decrease after one month storage. ICNP-embedded films using ERL as the polymer matrix presented excellent mucoadhesive and insulin release properties. A high permeation enhancement effect was observed for ICNP-loaded ERL films in comparison with ICNP-loaded ERL-HPMC films and a control insulin solution. ICNP-loaded ERL formulations were found to be more effective in terms of film performance and insulin permeation through the human buccal mucosa model, and thus are a promising delivery system for buccal administration of a peptide such as insulin. (C) 2014 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