OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the role of maltodextrin, glucose, and mannitol as carriers for in vitro and in vivo performance of Aceclofenac (ACE) proniosomes.
METHODS: Three formulations of proniosomes were prepared by the slurry method using the 100 mg ACE, 500 mg span 60, 250 mg cholesterol with 1300mg of different carriers, i.e., glucose (FN1), maltodextrin (FN2), and mannitol (FN3). In vitro drug release studies were conducted by the USP paddle method, while in vivo studies were performed in albino rats. Pure ACE was used as a reference in all the tests. Lastly, the results were analyzed using the High-Pressure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) method, and data were evaluated using further kinetic and statistical tools.
RESULTS: No significant differences (p > 0.05) in entrapment efficiency (%EE) of FN1, FN2, and FN3 (82 ± 0.5%, 84 ± 0.66%, and 84 ± 0.34% respectively) were observed and formulations were used for further in vitro and in vivo evaluations. During in vitro drug release studies, the dissolved drug was found to be 42% for the pure drug, while 70%, 17%, and 30% for FN1, FN2, and FN3, respectively, at 15 min. After 24 hrs, the pure drug showed a maximum of 50% release while 94%, 80%, and 79% drug release were observed after 24 hr for FN1, FN2, and FN3, respectively. The in vivo study conducted on albino rats showed a higher Cmax and AUC of FN1 and FN2 in comparison with the pure ACE. Moreover, the relative oral bioavailability of proniosomes with maltodextrin and glucose as carriers compared to the pure drug was 183% and 112%, respectively. Mannitol- based formulation exhibited low bioavailability (53.7%) that may be attributed to its osmotic behavior.
CONCLUSION: These findings confirm that a carrier plays a significant role in determining in vitro and in vivo performance of proniosomes and careful selection of carrier is an important aspect of proniosomes optimization.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five polymer types, namely hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), sodium carboxymethylcellulose (SCMC), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), Eudragit S100, and Eudragit SR100, were used to prepare aceclofenac buccal film formulation either separately or combined by solvent-casting method. These formulations were evaluated in terms of physical appearance, folding test, film weight and thickness, drug content, percentage of elongation, moisture uptake, water vapor permeability, and in vitro drug release.
RESULTS: The addition of Eudragit polymer in most of the produced buccal films was unacceptable with low folding endurance. However, the dissolution profile of buccal films made from PVA and Eudragit SR100 provided a controlled drug release profile.
CONCLUSION: Buccal films can be formulated using different polymers either individually or in combination to obtain the drug release profile required to achieve a desired treatment goal. Furthermore, the property of the buccal films depends on the type and concentration of the polymer used.