Advertisement

Full Factorial Design, Optimization, In vitro and Ex vivo Studies of Ocular Timolol-Loaded Microsponges

  • Radwa M. A. Abd-Elal
  • Ghada H. ElosailyEmail author
  • Shadeed Gad
  • El-Sayed Khafagy
  • Yasser Mostafa
Original Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Timolol maleate (TMM) is a hydrophilic model drug. The aim of this study was to formulate TMM-loaded microsponges to sustain TMM release and improve its corneal permeability compared with TMM-aqueous solution.

Methods

The modified quasi-emulsion solvent diffusion technique (water/oil/oil) was used to prepare TMM-loaded microsponges. The impact of the polymer type (X1) and drug:polymer ratio (X2) were studied and optimized, using full factorial design. The production yield (PY) %, entrapment efficiency (EE) %, particles size (PS), and TMM released % after 6 h were selected as dependent variables. Depended on the desirability value by using the Design-Expert® software version 11, the optimized formulation was selected and subjected to further studies, such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM), porosity determination, powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), ex vivo permeation study, and corneal hydration level.

Results

The optimized formulation composed of TMM: EC within the proportion 1:9 exhibited PY of 96.55 ± 4.01%; EE of 72.00 ± 6.08%; PS (d90) of 6283.33 ± 145.71 nm and released 42.12 ± 3.93% of TMM after 6 h. Particles appeared porous with spherical shape. Thermal analysis proved that the drug has been homogeneously dispersed in its amorphous state. The optimized formulation showed higher corneal permeability about 1.45-fold higher than TMM-aqueous solution in a period of 6 h.

Conclusions

The modified quasi-emulsion diffusion technique (water/oil/oil) is suitable for improving EE of hydrophilic drug (TMM) and the optimized TMM-loaded microsponge was succeeded to retard the release of TMM and improve its corneal permeability.

Keywords

Microsponges Water/oil/oil Timolol Optimization In vitro release Ex vivo permeation study 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12247_2019_9418_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1082 kb)
12247_2019_9418_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
ESM 2 (PDF 1082 kb)
12247_2019_9418_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
ESM 3 (PDF 1078 kb)
12247_2019_9418_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
ESM 4 (PDF 1082 kb)
12247_2019_9418_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
ESM 5 (PDF 1078 kb)
12247_2019_9418_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
ESM 6 (PDF 1083 kb)
12247_2019_9418_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
ESM 7 (PDF 1083 kb)
12247_2019_9418_MOESM8_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
ESM 8 (PDF 1082 kb)
12247_2019_9418_MOESM9_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
ESM 9 (PDF 1083 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Mohite P, Khanage S, Harishchandre V, Shirsath Y. Recent advances in microsponges drug delivery system. J Crit Rev. 2016;3(1):9–16.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zaman M, Qureshi S, Sultana K, Hanif M, Mahmood A, Shaheryar ZA, et al. Application of quasi-emulsification and modified double emulsification techniques for formulation of tacrolimus microsponges. Int J Nanomedicine. 2018;13:4537.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arya P, Pathak K. Assessing the viability of microsponges as gastro retentive drug delivery system of curcumin: optimization and pharmacokinetics. Int J Pharm. 2014;460(1-2):1–12.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Embil K, Nacht S. The microsponge® delivery system (MDS): a topical delivery system with reduced irritancy incorporating multiple triggering mechanisms for the release of actives. J Microencapsul. 1996;13(5):575–88.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salah S, Awad GE, Makhlouf AI. Improved vaginal retention and enhanced antifungal activity of miconazole microsponges gel: Formulation development and in-vivo therapeutic efficacy in rats. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2018;114:255–66.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Joshi G, RajandeepKaur HK. Microsponges: a novel drug delivery system. Int Res J Pharm Biosci. 2016;3(1):01–11.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Junqueira MV, Bruschi ML. A review about the drug delivery from microsponges. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2018:1–11.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aloorkar N, Kulkarni A, Ingale D, Patil R. Microsponges as innovative drug delivery systems. Int J Pharm Sci Nanotechnol. 2012;5:1597–606.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aydogan E, Comoglu T, Pehlivanoglu B, Dogan M, Comoglu S, Dogan A, et al. Process and formulation variables of pregabalin microspheres prepared by w/o/o double emulsion solvent diffusion method and their clinical application by animal modeling studies. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2015;41(8):1311–20.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elkharraz K, Ahmed AR, Dashevsky A, Bodmeier R. Encapsulation of water-soluble drugs by an o/o/o-solvent extraction microencapsulation method. Int J Pharm. 2011;409(1-2):89–95.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giri TK, Choudhary C, Alexander A, Badwaik H, Tripathi DK. Prospects of pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals loaded microparticles prepared by double emulsion technique for controlled delivery. Saudi Pharm J. 2013;21(2):125–41.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lu T-L. Sun W-g, Zhao W, Chen T. Preparation of amifostine polylactide-co-glycolide microspheres and its irradiation protective to mouse through oral administration. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2011;37(12):1473–80.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sahoo S, Mallick A, Barik B, Senapati P. Preparation and in vitro evaluation of ethyl cellulose microspheres containing stavudine by the double emulsion method. Pharmazie. 2007;62(2):117–21.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yin D, Lu Y, Zhang H, Zhang G, Zou H, Sun D, et al. Preparation of glucagon-like peptide-1 loaded PLGA microspheres: characterizations, release studies and bioactivities in vitro/in vivo. Chem Pharm Bull. 2008;56(2):156–61.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hegde RR, Bhattacharya SS, Verma A, Ghosh A. Physicochemical and pharmacological investigation of water/oil microemulsion of non-selective beta blocker for treatment of glaucoma. Curr Eye Res. 2014;39(2):155–63.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu S, Wang Q-M, Wang X, Liu D, Zhang W, Ye T, et al. Liposome incorporated ion sensitive in-situ gels for opthalmic delivery of timolol maleate. Int J Pharm. 2015;480(1-2):128–36.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martins AF, Facchi SP, da Câmara PC, Camargo SE, Camargo CH, Popat KC, et al. Novel poly (ε-caprolactone)/amino-functionalized tannin electrospun membranes as scaffolds for tissue engineering. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2018;525:21–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duarte ARC, Gordillo M, Cardoso MM, Simplício AL, Duarte CM. Preparation of ethyl cellulose/methyl cellulose blends by supercritical antisolvent precipitation. Int J Pharm. 2006;311(1-2):50–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dhanka M, Shetty C, Srivastava R. Injectable methotrexate loaded polycaprolactone microspheres: physicochemical characterization, biocompatibility, and hemocompatibility evaluation. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017;81:542–50.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Das MK, Rao KR. Evaluation of zidovudine encapsulated ethylcellulose microspheres prepared by water-in-oil-in-oil (w/o/o) double emulsion solvent diffusion technique. Acta Pol Pharm. 2006;63(2):141–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jelvehgari M, Montazam SH. Comparison of microencapsulation by emulsion-solvent extraction/evaporation technique using derivatives cellulose and acrylate-methacrylate copolymer as carriers. Jundishapur J Nat Pharm Prod. 2012;7(4):144–52.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moin A, Deb TK, Osmani RAM, Bhosale RR, Hani U. Fabrication, characterization, and evaluation of microsponge delivery system for facilitated fungal therapy. J Basic Clin Pharm. 2016;7(2):39–48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Venkatesan P, Manavalan R, Valliappan K. Preparation and evaluation of sustained release loxoprofen loaded microspheres. J Basic Clin Pharm. 2011;2(3):159.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abd-Elal RM, Shamma RN, Rashed HM, Bendas ER. Trans-nasal zolmitriptan novasomes: in-vitro preparation, optimization and in-vivo evaluation of brain targeting efficiency. Drug Deliv. 2016;23(9):3374–86.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tan G, Yu S, Pan H, Li J, Liu D, Yuan K, et al. Bioadhesive chitosan-loaded liposomes: a more efficient and higher permeable ocular delivery platform for timolol maleate. Int J Biol Macromol. 2017;94:355–63.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Labbé A, Pauly A, Liang H, Brignole-Baudouin F, Martin C, Warnet J-M, et al. Comparison of toxicological profiles of benzalkonium chloride and polyquaternium-1: an experimental study. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2006;22(4):267–78.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peppas NA. Analysis of Fickian and non-Fickian drug release from polymers. Pharm Acta Helv. 1985;60(4):110–1.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Han X, Ghoroi C, Davé R. Dry coating of micronized API powders for improved dissolution of directly compacted tablets with high drug loading. Int J Pharm. 2013;442(1-2):74–85.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pandit AP, Patel SA, Bhanushali VP, Kulkarni VS, Kakad VD. Nebivolol-loaded microsponge gel for healing of diabetic wound. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2017;18(3):846–54.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morsi N, Ghorab D, Refai H, Teba H. Ketoroloac tromethamine loaded nanodispersion incorporated into thermosensitive in situ gel for prolonged ocular delivery. Int J Pharm. 2016;506(1-2):57–67.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barse R, Kokare C, Tagalpallewar A. Influence of hydroxypropylmethylcellulose and poloxamer composite on developed ophthalmic in situ gel: ex vivo and in vivo characterization. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol. 2016;33:66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hao J, Wang X, Bi Y, Teng Y, Wang J, Li F, et al. Fabrication of a composite system combining solid lipid nanoparticles and thermosensitive hydrogel for challenging ophthalmic drug delivery. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014;114:111–20.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hui-Hui Z. qiu-hua L, zhi-jun Y, wei-san P, shu-fang N. Novel ophthalmic timolol meleate liposomal-hydrogel and its improved local glaucomatous therapeutic effect in vivo. Drug Deliv. 2011;18(7):502–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Albash R, Abdelbary AA, Refai H, El-Nabarawi MA. Use of transethosomes for enhancing the transdermal delivery of olmesartan medoxomil: in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo evaluation. Int J Nanomedicine. 2019;14:1953.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yousry C, Elkheshen SA, El-Laithy HM, Essam T, Fahmy RH. Studying the influence of formulation and process variables on vancomycin-loaded polymeric nanoparticles as potential carrier for enhanced ophthalmic delivery. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017;100:142–54.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Desai J, Alexander K, Riga A. Characterization of polymeric dispersions of dimenhydrinate in ethyl cellulose for controlled release. Int J pharm. 2006;308(1-2):115–23.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maulvi FA, Lakdawala DH, Shaikh AA, Desai AR, Choksi HH, Vaidya RJ, et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of novel implantation technology in hydrogel contact lenses for controlled drug delivery. J Control Release. 2016;226:47–56.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li X, Jiang F, Ni X, Yan W, Fang Y, Corke H, et al. Preparation and characterization of konjac glucomannan and ethyl cellulose blend films. Food Hydrocoll. 2015;44:229–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sahoo RK, Biswas N, Guha A, Sahoo N, Kuotsu K. Nonionic surfactant vesicles in ocular delivery: innovative approaches and perspectives. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pauly A. Brignole-Baudouin Fo, Labbé A, Liang H, Warnet J-M, Baudouin C. New tools for the evaluation of toxic ocular surface changes in the rat. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(12):5473–83.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maurer JK, Parker RD, Carr GJ. Ocular irritation: microscopic changes occurring over time in the rat with surfactants of known irritancy. Toxicol Pathol. 1998;26(2):217–25.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Maurer JK, Li HF, Petroll WM, Parker RD, Cavanagh HD, Jester JV. Confocal microscopic characterization of initial corneal changes of surfactant-induced eye irritation in the rabbit. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1997;143(2):291–300.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of PharmacyModern University for Technology & InformationCairoEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Pharmaceutics and Industrial Pharmacy, Faculty of PharmacyAl-Azhar UniversityCairoEgypt
  3. 3.Department of Pharmaceutics and Industrial Pharmacy, Faculty of PharmacySuez Canal UniversityIsmailiaEgypt
  4. 4.Department of Pharmaceutics, College of PharmacyPrince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz UniversityAl-KharjSaudi Arabia
  5. 5.Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of PharmacySuez Canal UniversityIsmailiaEgypt

Personalised recommendations