AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 123–133 | Cite as

Anticancer Efficacy of Self-Nanoemulsifying Drug Delivery System of Sunitinib Malate

  • Saad M. AlshahraniEmail author
  • Abdullah S. Alshetaili
  • Ahmed Alalaiwe
  • Bader B. Alsulays
  • Md. Khalid Anwer
  • Ramadan Al-Shdefat
  • Faisal Imam
  • Faiyaz Shakeel
Research Article


Sunitinib malate (SM) is reported as a weakly soluble drug in water due to its poor dissolution rate and oral bioavailability. Hence, in the current study, various “self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems (SNEDDS)” of SM were prepared, characterized and evaluated for the enhancement of its in vitro dissolution rate and anticancer efficacy. On the basis of solubilization potential of SM in various excipients, “Lauroglycol-90 (oil), Triton-X100 (surfactant) and Transcutol-P (cosurfactant)” were selected for the preparation of SM SNEDDS. SM-loaded SNEDDS were developed by spontaneous emulsification method, characterized and evaluated for “thermodynamic stability, self-nanoemulsification efficiency, droplet size, polydispersity index (PDI), zeta potential (ZP), surface morphology, refractive index (RI), the percent of transmittance (% T) and drug release profile.” In vitro dissolution rate of SM was significantly enhanced from an optimized SNEDDS in comparison with SM suspension. The optimized SNEDDS of SM with droplet size of 42.3 nm, PDI value of 0.174, ZP value of −36.4 mV, RI value of 1.339, % T value of 97.3%, and drug release profile of 95.4% (after 24 h via dialysis membrane) was selected for in vitro anticancer efficacy in human colon cancer cells (HT-29) by MTT assay. MTT assay indicated significant anticancer efficacy of optimized SM SNEDDS against HT-29 cells in comparison with free SM. The results of this study showed the great potential of SNEDDS in the enhancement of in vitro dissolution rate and anticancer efficacy of poorly soluble drug such as SM.


anticancer efficacy dissolution droplet size SNEDDS sunitinib malate 



“This project was supported by Deanship of Scientific Research, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia (Project No.5657/03/2016)”.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Mendel DB, Laird AD, Xin X, Louie SG, Christensen JG, Li G, et al. In vivo antitumor activity of SU11248, a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptors: determination of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:327–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zheng X, Zhang Y, Zhang L, Xu W, Ma W, Sun R, et al. Synergistic inhibition of sunitinib and ethaselen against human colorectal cancer cells proliferation. Biomed Pharmacother. 2016;83:212–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kwon HJ, Kim Y, Sugihara Y, Baldetorp B, Welinder C, Watanabe K, et al. Drug compound characterization by mass spectrometry imaging in cancer tissue. Arch Pharm Res. 2015;38:1718–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dong M, Phan AT, Yao JC. New strategies for advanced endocrine tumors in the era of targeted therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:1830–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sun J, Sun Q, Brown MF, Dudgeon C, Chandler J, Xu X, et al. The multi-targeted kinase inhibitor sunitinib induces apoptosis in colon cancer cells via PUMA. PLoS One. 2012;7:E43158.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DuBois SG, Shusterman S, Reid JM, Ingle AM, Ahern CH, Baruchel S, et al. Tolerability and pharmacokinetic profile of a sunitinib powder formulation in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors: a children’s oncology group study. Cancer Chemther Pharmacol. 2012;69:1021–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Navid F, Christensen R, Minkin P, Stewart CF, Fuman WL, Baker S. Stability of sunitinib in oral suspension. Ann Pharmacol. 2008;42:962–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Britten CD, Kabbinavar F, Hecht JR, Li CL, Bello J, Baum C, et al. A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of sunitinib administered daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week off period. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2008;6:515–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faivre S, Delbaldo C, Vera K, Robert C, Lozahic S, Lassau N, et al. Safety, pharmacokinetic, and antitumor activity of SU11248, a novel oral multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:25–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Houk BE, Bello CL, Kang D, Amantea M. A population pharmacokinetic meta-analysis of sunitinib malate (SU11248) and its primary metabolite (SU12662) in healthy volunteers and oncology patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:2497–506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gion PD, Kanefendt F, Lindauer A, Scheffler M, Doroshyenko O, Fuhr U, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Clin Pharmacokin. 2011;50:551–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parekh VJ, Desai ND, Shaikh MS, Shinde UA. Self-nanoemulsifying granules (SNEGs) of meloxicam: preparation, characterization, molecular modeling and evaluation of in vivo anti-inflammatory activity. Drug Develop Ind Pharm. 2017;43:600–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miao Y, Chen G, Ren L, Pingkai O. Characterization and evaluation of self-nanoemulsifying sustained-release pellet formulation of ziprasidone with enhanced bioavailability and no food effect. Drug Deliv. 2016;23:2163–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soliman KA, Ibrahim HK, Ghorab MM. Formulation of avanafil in a solid self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system for enhanced oral delivery. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2016;93:447–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khattab A, Hassanin L, Zaki N. Self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system of coenzyme (Q10) with improved dissolution, bioavailability, and protective efficiency on liver fibrosis. APPS Pharm Sci Tech. doi: 10.1208/s12249-016-0632-x.
  16. 16.
    Nekkanti V, Wang Z, Betageri GV. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of improved oral bioavailability of valsartan: proniosomes versus self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system. APPS Pharm Sci Tec. 2016;17:851–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shakeel F, Iqbal M, Ezzeldin E. Bioavailability enhancement and pharmacokinetic profile of an anticancer drug ibrutinib by self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2016;68:772–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mustapha O, Kim KS, Shafique S, Kim DS, Jin SG, Seo YG, et al. Development of novel cilostazol-loaded solid SNEDDS using as SPG membrane emulsification technique: physicochemical characterization and in vivo evaluation. Coll Surf B. 2017;150:216–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    El-Badry M, Haq N, Fetih G, Shakeel F. Solubility and dissolution enhancement of tadalafil using self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system. J Oleo Sci. 2014;63:567–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shafiq S, Shakeel F, Talegaonkar S, Ahmad FJ, Khar RK, Ali M. Development and bioavailability assessment of ramipril nanoemulsion formulation. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2007;66:227–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khan AW, Kotta S, Ansari SH, Sharma RK, Ali J. Potential and challenges in self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2012;9:1305–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Date AA, Desai N, Dixit R, Nagarsenker M. Self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems: formulations, insights, applications and advances. Nanomed. 2010;5:1595–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nazari-Vanani R, Moezi L, Heli H. In vivo evaluation of self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system for curcumin. Biomed Pharmacother. 2017;88:715–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Belouqui A, Memvanga PB, Coco R, Reimondez-Troitino S, Alhouayek M, Muccioli GG, et al. A comparative study of curcumin-loaded lipid-based nanocarriers in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Coll Surf B. 2016;143:327–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tripathi S, Kushwah V, Thanki K, Jain S. Triple antioxidant SNEDDS formulation with enhanced oral bioavailability: implication of chemoprevention of breast cancer. Nanomed. 2016;12:1431–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shen J, Bi J, Tian H, Jin Y, Wang Y, Yang X, et al. Preparation and evaluation of self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system loaded with Akebia saponin D-phospholipid complex. Int J Nanomedicine. 2016;11:4919–29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Seo YG, Kim DH, Ramasamy T, Kim JH, Marasini N, Oh YK, et al. Development of docetaxel-loaded solid self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system (SNEDDS) for enhanced chemotherapeutic effects. Int J Pharm. 2013;452:412–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shukla M, Jaiswal S, Sharma A, Srivastava PK, Arya A, Dwivedi AK, et al. A combination of complexation and self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system for enhancing oral bioavailability and anticancer efficacy of curcumin. Drug Develop Ind Pharm. 2017;43:847–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rao SVR, Shao J. Self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems (SNEDDS) for oral delivery of protein drugs I. Formulation development. Int J Pharm. 2008;362:2–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rao SVR, Agarwal P, Shao J. Self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems (SNEDDS) for oral delivery of protein drugs II. In vitro transport study. Int J Pharm. 2008;362:10–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rao SVR, Yajurvedi K, Shao J. Self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems (SNEDDS) for oral delivery of protein drugs III. In vivo absorption study. Int J Pharm. 2008;362:16–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Karamanidou T, Karidi K, Bourganis V, Kontonikola K, Kammona O, Kiparissides C. Effective incorporation of insulin in mucous permeating self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2015;97:223–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hauptstein S, Prufert F, Bernkop-Schnurch A. Self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system as novel approach for pDNA drug delivery. Int J Pharm. 2015;487:25–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li P, Tan A, Pristidge CA, Nielsen HM, Mullertz A. Self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems for oral insulin delivery: in vitro and in vivo evaluation of enteric coating and drug loading. Int J Pharm. 2014;477:390–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Joseph JJ, Sangeetha D, Gomathi T. Sunitinib loaded chitosan nanoparticles formulation and its evaluation. Int J Biol Macromol. 2016;82:952–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ramazani F, Hiemstra C, Steendam R, Kazazi-Hyseni F, Van Nostrum CF, Storm G, et al. Sunitinib microspheres based on [PDLLA-PEG-PDLLA]-b-PLLA multi-block copolymers for ocular drug delivery. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2015;95:368–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jubeli E, Yagoubi N, Pascale F, Bédouet L, Slimani K, Labarre D, et al. Embolization biomaterial reinforced with nanotechnology for an in-situ release of anti-angiogenic agent in the treatment of hyper-vascularized tumors and arteriovenous malformations. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2015;96:396–408.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sanders WG, Hogrebe PC, Grainger DW, Cheung AK, Terry CM. A biodegradable perivascular wrap for controlled, local and directed drug delivery. J Controlled Rel. 2012;161:81–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Higuchi T, Connors KA. Phase-solubility techniques. Adv Anal Chem Instr. 1965;4:117–22.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shakeel F, Shazly GA, Raish M, Ahmad A, Kalam MA, Ali N, et al. Biological investigation a super saturated self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system of Piper cubeba essential oil. RSC Adv. 2015;5:105206–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pouton CW. Formulation of self-emulsifying drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1997;25:47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pouton CW. Lipid formulation for oral administration of drugs: non-emulsifying, self-emulsifying and ‘self-microemulsifying’ drug delivery systems. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2000;11:S93–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bali V, Ali M, Ali J. Nanocarrier for the enhanced bioavailability of a cardiovascular agent: in vitro, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetic and stability assessment. Int J Pharm. 2011;403:46–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    United States Pharmacopeia (USP) XXIV, 2003. US Pharmacopeial Convention, CD Rom version.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Costa P, Lobo JSM. Modeling and comparison of dissolution profiles. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2001;15:123–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dash S, Murthy PN, Nath L, Chowdhury P. Kinetic modeling on drug release from controlled drug delivery systems. Acta Pol Pharm. 2010;67:217–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nuchuchua O, Sakulku U, Uawongyart N, Puttipipatkhachorn S, Soottitantawat A, Ruktanonchai U. In vitro characterization and mosquito (Aedes aegypti) repellent activity of essential-oils-loaded nanoemulsions. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech. 2009;10:1234–42.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cherniakov I, Domb AJ, Hoffman A. Self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems: an update of biopharmaceutical aspects. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2015;12:1121–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ribeiro RCDA, Baretto SMAG, Ostrosky EA, Rocha-Filho PAD, Verissimo LM, Ferrari M. Production and characterization of cosmetic nanoemulsions containing Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) mill extract as moisturizing agent. Mol. 2015;20:2492–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Maruno M, Rocha-Filho PA. O/W nanoemulsion after 15 years of preparation: a suitable vehicle for pharmaceutical and cosmetic applications. J Disp Sci Technol. 2010;31:17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bhat MA, Iqbal M, Al-Dhfyan A, Shakeel F. Carvone Schiff base of isoniazid as a novel antitumor agents: nanoemulsion development and pharmacokinetic evaluation. J Mol Liq. 2015;203:111–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shakeel F, Alanazi FK, Raish M, Haq N, Radwan AA, Alsarra IA. Pharmacokinetic and in vitro cytotoxic evaluation of cholesterol-rich nanoemulsion of cholesteryl-succinyl-5-fluorouracil. J Mol Liq. 2015;211:164–8.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shakeel F, Raish M, Anwer MK, Al-Shdefat R. Self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems of sinapic acid: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. J Mol Liq. 2016;224:351–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saad M. Alshahrani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abdullah S. Alshetaili
    • 1
  • Ahmed Alalaiwe
    • 1
  • Bader B. Alsulays
    • 1
  • Md. Khalid Anwer
    • 1
  • Ramadan Al-Shdefat
    • 1
    • 2
  • Faisal Imam
    • 3
  • Faiyaz Shakeel
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutics, College of PharmacyPrince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz UniversityAl-KharjSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of PharmacyJadara UniversityIrbidJordan
  3. 3.Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of PharmacyKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  4. 4.Department of Pharmaceutics, College of PharmacyKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  5. 5.Center of Excellence in Biotechnology Research (CEBR)King Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations