Formulation and Characterization of Magnetically
Responsive Mesalamine Microspheres for Colon Targeting
Sarita Gaikwad, Preeti K Suresh
University Institute of Pharmacy, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University,
Raipur (C.G.)
*Corresponding Author: suresh.preeti@gmail.com
Abstract
Background:
Magnetically Responsive Mesalamine Microspheres is an effective strategy for
localized drug delivery only at the target site for the treatment of Irritable
Bowel Diseases and thereby minimizing the dose and drug induced toxicity.
Objective:
The main objective of the study is to localize the drug only at the target site
thereby minimizing the dose.
Result
and Discussion: 1. The aim of present study was to formulate Magnetically
Responsive Mesalamine Microspheres by solvent evaporation method using biodegradable
polymers Chitosan and Pectin and carry out the various pharmaceutical and
magnetic characterizations, to study the effect of polymer type on in-vitro
drug release and preclinical in-vitro screening studies such as in- vitro
release studies using microflora activated system and in-vitro
anti-inflammatory activity. 2. Chemical compatibility study was performed using
FTIR spectroscopy. FTIR spectroscopy studies indicated that the Mesalamine is
compatible with polymers. The spectra showed no changes in the major peaks thus
confirming no interactions between drug and polymers. 3. Calibration curves of
Mesalamine was constructed in Phosphate Buffer Saline pH7. 4. Magnetite (Fe3O4)
(used as magnetic carrier) was chemically synthesized using precipitation
method.5. In the present study, 3 formulations were prepared in total by using
Chitosan and Pectin as polymer in different ratios (1:1,1:2 and 1:3) of each
polymer and combination of two polymers. Also, the effect of polymer type was
studied.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that the Magnetically Responsive Mesalamine Microspheres
offer a localized drug delivery only at the target site by the combined effect
of physical approach (utilizing the principle of magnetic targeting with an
intention to produce a depot near the target organ) and biochemical approach
(using biodegradable polymers chitosan and pectin for drug release in a
controlled manner). By producing a depot near the target organ, unwanted
distribution of drug to non-target organ can be avoided.
Keywords: Inflammation, magnetically responsive
microspheres, Mesalamine, IBD
Introduction
CTDDS means targeted delivery of drugs into the lower
GIT, which occurs primarily in the
large intestine (i.e., colon). In the past two decades, the pharmaceutical scientists have extensively investigated
in the area of colonic region for targeted drug delivery.(Mukesh et al. 2013)
Colon targeting depends on exploiting a unique
feature of specific site and protecting the drug until it reaches to the site.
Fig. 1 Anatomy of colon
Targeted drug delivery to the colon is highly desirable
for local treatment of a variety of
bowel diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, amebiasis, colonic cancer and for local treatment of local
colonic pathologies, and the systemic delivery
of protein and peptide drugs.(“Pharmaceutical
Approaches to Colon Targeted Drug Delivery Systems.” n.d.) The advent of slow release technologies increases the chances for a drug to be released in the
colon and thus this organ has an important role to play in drug
absorption from oral sustained release
formulations.
Microspheres are
characteristically free flowing powders consisting of proteins or synthetic
polymers having a particle
size ranging from 1-1000µm.
Microspheres are defined as “monolithic spheres
or therapeutic agent
distributed throughout the matrix either as a molecular dispersion of
particles” or can be defined as
structure made up of one or more miscible polymers in which drug particles
are dispersed at the molecular or macroscopic level.
There are two types of microspheres:
Ø Microcapsules
Ø Micro matrices
Microcapsules are
those in which entrapped substance is distinctly surrounded by distinct capsule wall and micro
matrices in which entrapped substance is dispersing throughout the microsphere’s matrix. They are made up of
polymeric, waxy, or other protective
materials, that is biodegradable synthetic polymers and modified natural products.
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY (Patra, Shukla, and Das 2020),(Ritter et al. 2008)
Multiple etiologies
have been proposed for IBD, but the precise cause is unknown. When a luminal
antigen crosses the epithelial layer, T- lymphocytes (helper cells and cytotoxic
cells) are activated. These t-cells are normally found in gut wall but in IBD,
the normal regulation of their
activity is disturbed. Helper T-cells, type-1 (Th-1), are associated principally with CD, whereas
Th-2 cells are associated
principally with UC.
Fig. 2 Molecular structure
of microsphere
In UC, with the
influx of neutrophils in lamina propia, there is localized collection of pus cells surrounded by inflamed tissues
and causes depletion
of mucin. Activation of mucosal
inflammatory cells also leads to the production of large number of inflammatory mediators such as cytokines, leukotrienes,
prostaglandins, platelet activating factor, oxygen radicals, thromboxanes
and proteases etc. which are atleast
partly responsible for tissue damage.
In CD, the
accompanying inflammation is described as irregular/ patchy, segmented, and transmural. Most commonly, terminal
ileum exhibits early lesions on or near Peyer’s patches.(Patra, Shukla, and Das 2020)
Fig 3 - Pathophysiology of
IBD
MATERIALS AND
METHOD
Mesalamine
and Chitosan, Sigma Aldrich, Pectin
and Magnesium Stearate, HI Media Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai,
Talc, MMC Health care, Chennai,
Liquid Paraffin and Sodium Hydroxide, Aventor performance materials, Thane,Maharashtra,
Ferrous Sulphate, Finar chemicals, Ahmedabad,
Tween 80 and Span 80, Supra Chemicals, Chennai. Potassium dihydrogen ortho
Phosphate, Disodium hydrogen phosphate,
Sodium chloride, Hydrochloric acid, Glacial acetic acid, Dist. Water, Glutaraldehyde, Toluene, n-Hexane,
Span 80.
PREFORMULATION STUDIES
The preformulation studies are the first step in the rational development of any formulation. It can be defined as
“investigation of physical and chemical properties of drug substance alone and combined with the
excipients. “The overall objective of preformulation testing is to generate information useful to the formulator in developing stable and bioavailable dosage forms that can be mass produced.
The goals of the study are:
Ø To
establish physical characteristics.
Ø To
establish its compatibility with the excipients.
Ø To
determine kinetic rate profile.
DRUG-POLYMER INCOMPATIBILITY STUDIES
Fourier Transform Infra-Red Spectroscopy
The compatibility
between pure drug and polymer was detected by FT- IR spectra. 1-2mg of
Mesalamine alone, mixture of drug and excipients were weighed and mixed properly with Potassium bromide
uniformly. The spectra were recorded over the
wave number 4000- 500cm-
CALIBRATION CURVE FOR MESALAMINE
Preparation of Phosphate Buffer Saline (PBS) pH 7.4
2.38g of disodium hydrogen
phosphate, 0.19g of potassium di-hydrogen phosphate and 8.0g of sodium chloride was dissolved in
sufficient distilled water to produce 1000ml. Then the pH was adjusted, if necessary.
Preparation of 0.1N
Hydrochloric acid (pH 1.2)
8.5ml of conc. HCl was
dissolved in 1000ml of distilled
water. Then the pH was adjusted, if necessary.
Standard Curve in Phosphate Buffer Saline pH 7.4
100 mg of Mesalamine
was transferred into a volumetric flask and dissolved in 15ml of 0.1N hydrochloric acid and the volume
was made up to 100ml with PBS pH 7.4. The resulting
solution was labeled as stock solution 1. From this stock solution, 10ml was
taken and diluted to 100ml with
Phosphate buffer saline pH 7.4 was labeled as stock 2. From this stock solution, 4ml, 8ml, 12ml, 16ml,
20ml, 24ml and 28ml were pipetted out into separate standard flasks and
made up to 100ml with Phosphate buffer saline
pH 7.4. The absorbance of solution was measured at 230nm using UV- Visible Spectrophotometer. The calibration curve was then plotted taking concentration on X- axis and
absorbance on Y- axis.
PREPARATION OF MESALAMINE MAGNETIC MICROSPHERES
Preparation of Magnetite
The magnetite (Fe3O4)
was prepared by reacting 10%w/v ferrous sulphate (containing 5% tween
80) with 20%w/v sodium hydroxide solution, followed by washing of the precipitate with dilute ammonia in
order to get magnetite free of sulphate ions. This precipitate of
magnetite was then dried at 1000C and passed through sieve no.300.
Fig 4(a)
- MAGNETIC BEHAVIOUR OF THE PREPARED MICROSPHERES
Fig 4(b)
- AFTER 30 SEC MAGNETITE MOVE TOWARDS THE DIRECTION OF MAGNETIC FIELD
Preparation of Glutaraldehyde
saturated toluene (GST)
Glutaraldehyde (100ml) and toluene (100ml) were
placed in a beaker and stirred at 1000rpm for one hour using a magnetic
stirrer. Then the solvent mixture was kept overnight for stabilization after
which the upper toluene layer saturated with glutaraldehyde was decanted and
used as glutaraldehyde saturated toluene (GST).
Preparation of Dummy
Magnetic Microspheres
Dummy magnetic microspheres were prepared by O/O
solvent evaporation with chemical cross-linking method. Accurately weighed
quantity of polymer was dissolved in 10ml of 1% glacial acetic acid. 10mg
of magnesium stearate was then added to
the polymer-drug solution. Finally, specified amount of magnetite was added to
this solution. The organic phase was drop-wise to 30ml of liquid paraffin
containing 2% Span 80 and stirred at a speed of 1500rpm at 800C using high
speed homogenizer. Stirring was continued for 1 h after the complete addition
of polymer solution into oil. After 1 h stirring, 1-2 ml of GST was added
dropwise added to the mixture with continuous stirring at 500 rpm for the next
1 h at a temperature 50-550 C. stirring was stopped after 1 h of addition of
GST. Suspension of microspheres in paraffin oil thus obtained was centrifuged
and the clear supernatant was decanted. Microspheres were then filtered and
washed 3 times with hexane to remove liquid paraffin and then with distilled
water to remove unentrapped drug from the surface of the microsphere. After
that the microspheres were air dried and stored in dessicator at room
temperature.
Table 1: Formulation of Dummy Magnetic Microspheres
|
Form ulatio n code
|
Polymer (mg)
|
Magn etite
(mg)
|
Magnesiu m Stearate 5%
(mg)
|
Liq. paraffin (ml)
|
Span 80
(ml)
|
Drug: Polymer ratio
|
|
|
Chitosan
|
Pectin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F1
|
125
|
-
|
50
|
10
|
30
|
0.6
|
1:1
|
|
F2
|
-
|
125
|
50
|
10
|
30
|
0.6
|
1:1
|
|
F3
|
62.5
|
62.5
|
50
|
10
|
30
|
0.6
|
1:1
|
Preparation of Mesalamine
Magnetic Microspheres
A Magnetic Microsphere
of Dummy was prepared by O/O solvent evaporation with chemical crosslinking method. Accurately weighed quantity of
polymer was dissolved in 10ml of 1% glacial acetic acid and
accurately weighed drug was dissolved in minimum quantity of 0.1N HCl and added
into the polymer solution. 10mg of
magnesium stearate was then
added to the polymer-drug solution. Finally, specified amount of magnetite was added to this solution. The organic phase
was drop-wise to 30ml of liquid paraffin containing 2% Span 80 and stirred at
a speed of 1500rpm at 800C using high speed homogenizer. Stirring was continued for 1 h after the
complete addition of polymer-drug solution into oil. After 1 h stirring, 1-2 ml of
GST was added dropwise to the mixture with continuous stirring at 500 rpm for the next 1 h at a
temperature 50-550 C. Stirring was stopped after 1 h of addition
of GST. Suspension of
microspheres in paraffin oil thus obtained
was centrifuged and the clear
supernatant was decanted. Microspheres were then filtered and washed 3 times with hexane to remove liquid paraffin and then with distilled water to remove
unentrapped drug from the surface of the microsphere. After that the
microspheres were air dried and stored in dessicator at room temperature.
Table 2: Formulation of Mesalamine Magnetic Microspheres
|
Formulation code
|
Drug (mg)
|
Polymer 0(mg)
|
Magn etite (mg)
|
Magnesium Stearate 5%(mg)
|
Liq. paraffin (ml)
|
Span 80
(ml)
|
Drug: Polymer ratio
|
|
|
|
Chitosan
|
Pectin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F1
|
125
|
125
|
-
|
50
|
10
|
30
|
0.6
|
1:1
|
|
F2
|
125
|
-
|
125
|
50
|
10
|
30
|
0.6
|
1:1
|
|
F3
|
125
|
62.5
|
62.5
|
50
|
10
|
30
|
0.6
|
1:1
|
Fig 5 -
FORMULATED MESALAMINE MAGNETIC MICROSPHERES
EVALUATION OF MAGNETIC MICROSPHERES
PHYSICOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION
Shape and surface
morphology studies using Optical
Microscope
The shape and surface morphology of magnetic microspheres were investigated using optical
microscopy. The samples for EM study were prepared by lightly sprinkling the formulation on a slide and
then covered with a cover slip and the prepared slide was then observed under
the optical microscope.
Particle Size Analysis
The Mesalamine Magnetic Microsphere were analyzed for their size and
polydispersity index on Zetasizer Nano ZS, Malvern instruments, based on photon
correlation spectroscopy, at a scattering angle of 90° and temperature of 25°.
Measurements were carried out both for fresh and air-dried samples. Before
counting, the samples were diluted with a phosphate buffer at pH 7.4 and 0.1N
HCl and were sonicated in order to prevent precipitation during the
measurements.
Surface charge (Zeta-potential)
The surface charge of the mesalamine magnetic microspheres was determined
with Zetasizer Nano ZS, Malvern instruments. The measurements were carried out
in an aqueous solution of KCl 0.1N solution. The measured values were corrected
to a standard reference for temperature of 20°.
Drug- Excipient Interaction
The FT-IR spectrum was recorded on Shimadzu FT-IR spectrophotometer, for
the prepared mesalamine magnetic microspheres. The samples were prepared by grinding samples (5mg) with KBr (100mg) and then
pressing the mixtures into pellets, further placed on a crystal
sample holder and scanned from 4000cm-1 to 400cm-1.
Melting point
Melting point of drug sample was performed to determine the purity of the
sample. The impurity present in small amount was detected using capillary
method in Melting Point Apparatus, Electronics India and model no. 931.
Partition coefficient
Partition coefficient was performed by taking 10mg of drug dissolved in
10ml of octanol and 10 ml of distilled water and kept for 24 hrs. After then,
the separated distilled water was analyzed spectrophotometrically in UV
spectroscopy at 230 nm.
Solubility studies
Solubility profile of drug determined using different solvents such as
distilled water, phosphate buffer at different pH 4.5, 6.0, 7.2, 7.5 and 0.1N
HCl. A saturated solution was prepared by adding 10mg drug in 10ml of solution
and then analyzed using UV spectrophotometer at 230 nm.
PHARMACEUTICAL
CHARACTERIZATION
Percentage Yield
Microspheres were
weighed and the percentage yield was calculated by taking into consideration the total weight of the drug and excipients used for preparation of microspheres.
|
Percentage Yield =
|
Practical yield
|
X
100
|
|
Theoretical yield
|
Estimation of Drug Content and Entrapment Efficiency
50mg of microspheres
was weighed and dissolved in 2.5ml of 0.1N HCl and suitably diluted with phosphate buffer saline pH
7.4 in 50 ml standard flasks. The solution was kept for 24hrs and filtered to separate the fragments. Drug content was
analyzed after suitable dilution by
UV spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 230 nm against phosphate buffer saline
pH 7.4 as blank. The drug content
of each formulation was calculated using the following
equation
|
Percentage Drug Entrapment Efficiency =
|
Actual Drug Content
|
X
100
|
|
Theoretical Drug Content
|
Drug Loading Capacity
Drug loaded
microspheres were mixed in 2.5ml of 0.1N HCl and suitably diluted with phosphate buffer pH 7.4 at room
temperature and kept for 24 h. After filtration and suitable dilution,
Mesalamine present in the solution was determined.
|
% Drug Loading
=
|
Quantity of the drug present
in the microspheres
|
X 100
|
|
Weighed quantity of microspheres
|
in- vitro
Drug Release Study
The in- vitro drug release
study was carried out in paddle apparatus using a mixture of 45ml of 0.1N HCl and 855ml of PBS pH 7.4 as the dissolution medium
maintained at 370C+
0.50C. Weighed microspheres containing 50mg of drug were introduced into the dissolution medium. Aliquots were taken at
regular time intervals and after suitable dilution, percentage drug release
analysed by UV Spectrophotometer at 230nm.
RELEASE KINETICS OF THE OPTIMIZED FORMULATION
The in- vitro release data for the optimized
batch was fitted to various release kinetic models
(Zero-order, First- order, Higuchi, Hixon- Crowell and Korsmeyer- Peppas
models). The goodness of fit was found
out to describe the kinetics
of drug release.
Zero order release model
Zero order models
describe the systems where the drug release rate is independent of its concentration
of the dissolved substance.
C = Ko t
Where, C- Cumulative percentage drug released Ko – zero-order
constant
t- time
A plot of time on x-
axis and cumulative percentage drug released on y-axis gives a straight
line with slope, Ko if it
follows zero-order Kinetics.
Application: This relationship can be used to describe the drug release of
several types of modified release
pharmaceutical dosage forms like transdermal systems, matrix tablets with low soluble
drugs in coated forms and osmotic systems.
First order release model
First order models describe
the systems where the release
rate is dependent
on the concentration of the dissolved substance.
Log C = log Co – K t / 2.303
Where, C – Cumulative percentage drug remaining Co- Initial concentration of drug
K – First order
constant
A plot of time on x-axis and log cumulative percentage drug remaining on y – axis gives
a straight line with slope, K / 2.303 if it follows first- order kinetics.
Application: This relationship can be used to describe the drug dissolution in
pharmaceutical dosage forms containing water –soluble drugs in porous
matrices.
Higuchi release
model
The Higuchi model describes
the release from systems where the solid drug is dispersed in an
insoluble matrix and the rate
of release is related to the
rate of drug diffusion.
Q = K √t
Where, Q – Cumulative percentage drug released
K- Constant reflecting the design variables of the system t – Time
A plot of square root of time on x-axis and cumulative percentage drug released on y- axis
gives a straight line if it
follows Higuchi Kinetics.
Application: This relationship can be used to describe the drug dissolution from several types of modified release pharmaceutical
dosage forms like some trans-dermal systems and matrix tablets with water soluble
drugs.
Hixson-Crowell release model
The Hixson-Crowell cube root model describes the release from systems where there is a
change in surface area and
diameter of the tablets or particles.
Q 1/3 – Qt1/3 = K K t
Where,
Qt – Cumulative percentage drug released in time t Qo –
initial amount of the drug
KHC –
the rate constant for Hixson-Crowell rate equation K – Constant incorporating the surface volume relation
A plot of time on x-axis and cube root of
cumulative percentage of drug remaining on
y-axis gives a straight line if it follows Hixson-Crowell kinetics.
Application: This equation applies to dosage forms like tablets, where the
dissolution occurs in planes that are
parallel to the drug surface if the tablet dimensions diminish proportionally, in such a manner
that the initial geometrical form keeps
constant.
Kors Meyer and Peppa’s Model:
Kors Meyer and Peppa’s Model derive a simple relationship which describes the drug release
from a polymeric system.
Mt / Mα = K t n
Where, Mt / Mα – fraction of drug released at time
t K - Release rate constant
n - Release
exponent
A plot of log time on x-axis and log cumulative percentage of drug released on y-axis gives
a straight line, if it
follows Korsmeyer and Peppas kinetics.
|
DIFFUSION
COEFFICIENT
|
OVERALL SOLUTE
RELEASE MECHANISM
|
EFFECT ON DRUG11
RELEASE
|
|
0.45
|
Fickian diffusion
|
Only due to diffusion
through the
matrix
|
|
0.45<n<0.89
|
Anomalous
(non-fickian diffusion)
|
Drug diffusion and polymer
relaxation (erosion)
|
|
0.89
|
Case-II transport
|
Only due to polymer
relaxation (erosion)
|
|
n>0.89
|
Super case-II transports
|
In-vitro drug release data were fitted to various models such as zero-order, first- order, Higuchi equation, Kors Meyer- Peppa’s
equation, and Hixson-Crowell equation to know
about the mechanism of drug release:
1. C
versus t (zero order)
2. log
C versus t (first order)
3. Q
versus square root of t (Higuchi)
4. Qt versus cube root of t (Hixson-Crowell)
5. log% Qt versus log
t (Kors Meyer- Peppa’s)
P-XRD
Analysis:
Powder XRD of formulation mixture of
mesalamine with chitosan and pectin was recorded using PANlytical X ray
diffractometer with Si (Li) PSD detector. The operation data were measuring
circle diameter – 435, 500 and 600 mm predetermined; angle range-120°, X-ray
source- Cu, wavelength 1.5406
Differential Scanning Calorimetry
The DSC analysis of pure drug was carried out
using differential scanning calorimeter (METLER TOLEDO). Sample of about 5mg
was placed in a 50 µl perforated aluminium pan and sealed. Heat runs for each
sample were set from 5°C to 300°C using nitrogen as purging gas and sample.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PREFORMULATION STUDIES
Drug- Polymer
Compatibility Studies using FTIR Spectroscopy
The compatibility between drug and polymer was confirmed by using FTIR spectroscopy.
Infrared
spectroscopic analysis for drug
(Mesalamine), Polymers (Chitosan, Pectin), magnesium stearate
and Drug-Polymer mixture
were carried out.
The principal IR peaks of pure Mesalamine and polymers Chitosan
and Pectin in figure
6-11.
Fig 6 - FTIR
spectra of (Mesalamine + Chitosan) Vs. Mesalamine
Interpretation:
From the Fig.6 it could be interpreted 2800-2900
shows O-H stretching of carboxylic acid, 3000-3050 shows Ar-H stretching,
1550-1600 shows C=C stretching, 3600-3700 shows phenolic O-H stretching,
1680-1700 shows C=O stretching of carboxylic acid, 3300-3450 shows N-H stretch.
The FTIR study revealed that there is no interaction between the drug and
polymer, since the major peaks of the drugs are not
affected by the excipients.
Fig 7 - FTIR spectra of (Mesalamine + Pectin)
Vs. Mesalamine
In Fig.7 2800-2950 shows O-H stretching of carboxylic
acid, 3000-3050 shows Ar-H stretching, 1550-1600 shows C=C stretching,
3600-3700 shows phenolic O-H stretching, 1680-1700 shows C=O stretching of
carboxylic acid, 3200-3400 shows N-H stretching. The FTIR study revealed that
there is no interaction between the drug and polymer, since the major
peaks of the drugs are not affected by the excipients.
Fig 8 - FTIR spectra of (Mesalamine + Pectin)
Vs. Mesalamine
In Fig. 8 72800-2950 shows O-H stretching of
carboxylic acid, 3000-3050 shows Ar-H stretching, 1550-1600 shows C=C
stretching, 3600-3700 shows phenolic O-H stretching, 1680-1700 shows C=O
stretching of carboxylic acid, 3200-3400 shows N-H stretching. The FTIR study
revealed that there is no interaction between the drug and polymer, since
the major peaks of the drugs
are not affected by the excipients.
Fig 9 - FTIR spectra
of (Mesalamine + Magnetite) Vs. Mesalamine
In Fig. 9 2900-2950 shows O-H stretching of
carboxylic acid, 3000-3050 shows Ar-H stretching, 1500-1600 shows C=C stretching,
3500-3700 shows phenolic O-H stretching, 1680-1700 shows C=O stretching of
carboxylic acid, 3200-3300 shows N-H stretching. The FTIR study revealed
that there is no interaction between the drug and polymer, since the major peaks of the drugs
are not affected by the excipients.
Fig. 10 -
FTIR spectra of (Mesalamine + Magnesium Stearate)
Vs. Mesalamine
In Fig. 10 2800-2900 shows O-H stretching of
carboxylic acid, 2950-3050 shows Ar-H stretching, 1490-1550 shows C=C
stretching, 3500-3700 shows phenolic O-H stretching, 1680-1700 shows C=O
stretching of carboxylic acid, 3300-3400 shows N-H stretching. The FTIR study revealed
that there is no interaction between the drug and polymer.
Hence it can be concluded
that the major peaks of the drugs are not
affected by the excipients. (Guo et al. 2010)
Fig 11 - FTIR spectra
of (Mesalamine + Magnesium Stearate) Vs. Mesalamine
In Fig. 11 2800-2900 shows O-H stretching of
carboxylic acid, 2950-3050 shows Ar-H stretching, 1490-1550 shows C=C
stretching, 3500-3700 shows phenolic O-H stretching, 1680-1700 shows C=O
stretching of carboxylic acid, 3300-3400 shows N-H stretching.The FTIR study revealed
that there is no interaction between the drug and polymer.
Hence it can be concluded
that the major peaks of the drugs are not
affected by the excipients. (Guo et al. 2010)
STANDARD CALIBRATION CURVE FOR MESALAMINE
The UV
Spectrophotometric method was used to analyze Mesalamine. The absorbance of the drug in phosphate buffer saline (pH
7.4) was measured at a wavelength of 230nm. The results are given in table 17 and figure 30.
Table 3: Standard Curve for Mesalamine in PBS (pH 7.4) at 230nm
|
Sr. No.
|
Concentration (µg/ml)
|
Absorbance
|
|
1.
|
0
|
0
|
|
2.
|
10
|
0.132
|
|
3.
|
20
|
0.248
|
|
4.
|
30
|
0.375
|
|
5.
|
40
|
0.488
|
|
6.
|
50
|
0.612
|
Fig 12 - Standard Curve for Mesalamine in PBS pH 7.4 at 230nm
As shown in figure 12 the linearity was
exhibited at a concentration range of 0- 10 µg/ml of Mesalamine
indicating that it obeys Beer-Lambert’s law in this range.53, 86
EVALUATION
OF MICROSPHERES
PHYSICOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION
Optical Microscopy
Morphological analysis of the microspheres was carried out using Optical
Microscopy and the result
is shown in figure 13.
Fig 13 - Micrograph
of
Optimized formulation F3
The
micrograph reveals that the microspheres were discrete and spherical in shape.
Particle Size
The particle
sizes of various formulations of microsphere were determined by Zetasizer. The results of particle size are depicted
in the figure 14 and 15.
Fig 14 – Particle size distribution of F3
Fig 15 – Zeta Potential Distribution of F3
The data revealed
that average particle size of microspheres increased with increasing polymer concentration. Higher
concentration of polymer produced a more viscous dispersion with larger droplets and consequently
larger microspheres were formed.(D. Chandra et al. n.d.),(Paharia et al. 2007), The particle
sizes of microspheres was found
in the range of 33.3 to 47.85 µm.
In general, less
than 5µm size is used for intravenous route, less than 125 µm is used for intra-arterial route. Particles of
this size can be administered easily by suspending them in a suitable vehicle and injecting them
using a conventional syringe with an 18 or 20 gauge needle.(Mascolo, Pei, and Ring 2013)
Drug Excipient Interaction
Fig 16 - FTIR
Spectra of Optimized formulation
In
Fig. 16, 2900-3000 shows O-H stretching of carboxylic acid, 2900-3000 shows
Ar-H stretching, 1550-1600 shows C=C stretching, 3500-3700 shows phenolic O-H
stretching ,1650-1750 shows C=O stretching of carboxylic acid.
The FTIR study revealed that there is no interaction between the drug and
polymer in the optimized formulation
F3. Hence it can be concluded that the major peaks of the drug are not affected by the excipients. (Kakar, Batra, and Singh
2013),(Sharma et al. 2012)
Melting point determination
The melting point determined by MELTING
POINT APPARATUS, MODEL NO. 931,
ELECTRONIC INDIA using capillary method. The results
are shown in table no and compared with standard.
|
Identification test
|
Observed result
|
|
Melting point
|
278°C
|
Partition coefficient
Partition coeffient was determined using octanol as
organic solvent and water as aqueous phase and observed in SHIMADZU UV 1800 at
a wavelength of 230nm.
noctanol :
nwater: Drug = 10ml:10ml:10mg
Partition coeffient= conc. of drug in org. phase
…..............................................
conc. of drug
in aq. Phase
|
Test
|
Observed value
|
|
Partition coefficient
|
1.30
|
It indicates that the compound would exhibit roughly
an equivalent preference for either a hydrophobic or hydrophilic.
SOLUBILITY STUDY
Solubility study should be determined in various
mediums such as water (pH 7.0), 0.1N HCL (pH 1.2), acetate (pH 4.5) and phosphate buffer (pH 6.8 and pH 7.2) SHIMADZU 1800.
|
Media
|
Mesalamine
(mg/ml)
|
|
0.1N
HCL
|
18.2
|
|
pH 4.5
buffer
|
2.7
|
|
pH 6.0
buffer
|
3.7
|
|
pH 7.2
buffer
|
8.4
|
|
pH 7.5
buffer
|
9.7
|
Mesalamine was observed to have maximum solubility in
0.1N HCL and increases
from pH 4.5 to pH 7.5 range.
PHARMACEUTICAL EVALUATIONS
Percentage Yield
Percentage yield of various
formulations are depicted
in the table 4 and figure 17.
Table 4: Percentage yield of various microspheres formulation
|
Formulation code
|
Theoretical yield Practical yield
(g) (g)
|
Percentage yield
(%
w/w)
|
|
F1
|
1.860
|
1.48
|
79.570
|
|
F2
|
1.860
|
1.688
|
90.753
|
|
F3
|
1.860
|
1.723
|
92.634
|
Table 5: Drug Content
of Formulated Microspheres
|
Formulation code
|
Drug Content (%w/w)
|
|
F1
|
85.058
|
|
F2
|
85.698
|
|
F3
|
86.369
|
Fig 17 - Percentage
yield of microspheres
The percentage yield
was found in the range of 79.57 to 92.634% w/w. The results indicated that the formulation containing
chitosan-pectin combination (1: 1
ratio) yields better percentage of Mesalamine magnetic microspheres.
Drug Content and Entrapment Efficiency
The content of
active ingredients of various formulations was analyzed using UV spectrophotometer at 230 nm. The results
of percentage drug content are depicted in table 5 and figure 18.
The percentage of drug content
ranged from 69.964 to 86.369%
w/w. The formulation F3 found to have highest drug content.
Drug Loading Capacity
The drug loading capacity
of various formulations was analyzed using UV spectrophotometer at 230 nm. The results
of percentage drug content are depicted in table 6 and figure 19.
Fig 18 - Drug content
of formulated microspheres
Table 6: Drug Loading Capacity
of Formulated Microspheres
|
Formulation code
|
Drug Loading (%)
|
|
F1
|
17.289
|
|
F2
|
19.131
|
|
F3
|
17.540
|
Fig 19 - Drug loading of formulated microspheres
The drug loading capacity
ranged from 17.289 – 28.209 %w/w and from the result it is clear
that the drug loading
capacity increases with increase in concentration of pectin.(Thakral et al. 2011)
in- vitro release study
The in- vitro release study of Mesalamine
magnetic microspheres was done using USP II type Paddle apparatus using a
mixture of 45ml of 0.1N HCl and 855ml
of PBS pH 7.4 as the dissolution medium.
The results are shown
in table 7 and figure 20.
Table 7. Percentage drug release of Pure Drug, Formulation F1 to F3
|
Time (hours)
|
Pure Drug
|
F1
|
F2
|
F3
|
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
0.5
|
29.160
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
1
|
93.400
|
4.464
|
3.960
|
10.44
|
|
1.5
|
110.48
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
2
|
-
|
9.024
|
10.092
|
14.46
|
|
3
|
-
|
15.916
|
11.240
|
19.218
|
|
4
|
-
|
21.404
|
18.860
|
35.884
|
|
5
|
-
|
48.520
|
24.364
|
79.282
|
|
6
|
-
|
63.908
|
47.180
|
90.520
|
|
7
|
-
|
89.820
|
91.998
|
103.618
|
Fig
20. - Percentage Drug release from Mesalamine Magnetic
Microspheres
It is observed that all the formulations gave the drug release less than
10±1% in first 2 hrs in PBS (pH
7.4) As drug: polymer ratio increases (i) drug release decreases due to the
formation of a rigid polymer matrix
and (ii) particle size increases, thus surface area is decreased and the drug release is retarded
for the formulation F3 with the highest drug: polymer ratio
(1:1).
The results
indicated that formulation with lesser drug–polymer ratio shows faster drug release. All formulations from F2 showed
a burst release of 50+5% in 2h itself.
The burst release may be due to
high solubility of pectin.(Nasab et al. 2021)
It is observed that
the formulations F3 containing polymer mixture
(chitosan and pectin in the ratios 1:1) was able to protect the formulation from premature drug release
when compared to those formulations containing
pectin alone (namely, F2). The results also indicates that the
chitosan-pectin microspheres
substantially retarded the drug release and showed the best result for the one with higher chitosan content (i.e., F3
formulation). The inter polymer complex that could be formed between carboxyl
groups of pectin and the amino groups of chitosan,
may be responsible for such delayed
drug release.
Effect of polymer
type on in- vitro drug release
The effect of polymer types on in- vitro drug release was compared.
The results are shown in table 8 and figure 21.
Table 8: Percentage drug release of Formulations F1, F2 and F3
|
Time
(hours)
|
F1
|
F2
|
F3
|
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
1
|
4.464
|
46.800
|
6.840
|
|
2
|
9.024
|
55.700
|
14.078
|
|
3
|
15.916
|
64.288
|
21.476
|
|
4
|
21.404
|
99.482
|
30.808
|
|
5
|
48.520
|
-
|
58.243
|
|
6
|
63.908
|
-
|
76.534
|
|
7
|
89.820
|
-
|
95.137
|
|
8
|
-
|
-
|
99.019
|
|
9
|
-
|
-
|
100.00
|
Fig. 21 - Percentage drug release of Formulations F1, F2 and F3
It is observed
that the formulation F3 containing
polymer mixture (chitosan and pectin
in the ratio (1:1) was able to protect the formulation from premature drug
release when compared to those
formulation containing pectin alone (F2). The results also indicates that the chitosan-pectin microspheres
substantially retarded the drug release up to 9 hours. The inter polymer complex that could be formed
between carboxyl groups of pectin and the amino groups of chitosan, may be responsible for such delayed drug release.
Release kinetics
and mechanism
The kinetics of drug release for
optimized Mesalamine loaded Chitosan-Pectin (1:1ratio) magnetic microspheres F3 was shown in
the table 25 and figure 39-43.
Table 9: Mechanism of release kinetics
|
Time in Hours
|
%
Cum. Drug release
|
% Cum. Drug remaining
|
Log% Cum. drug remaining
|
Square root of time
|
Log time
|
Log% cum. Drug release
|
Cube root of % drug remaining
|
|
0
|
0
|
100
|
2
|
0
|
-α
|
-α
|
4.642
|
|
1
|
6.84
|
93.16
|
1.969
|
1
|
0
|
0.835
|
4.533
|
|
2
|
14.078
|
85.922
|
1.934
|
1.41421
|
0.30103
|
1.148
|
4.413
|
|
3
|
21.476
|
75.524
|
1.878
|
1.73205
|
0.47712
|
1.332
|
4.227
|
|
4
|
30.808
|
69.192
|
1.84
|
2
|
0.60206
|
1.489
|
4.105
|
|
5
|
58.243
|
41.757
|
1.621
|
2.23607
|
0.69897
|
1.765
|
3.469
|
|
6
|
76.13
|
23.87
|
1.378
|
2.44949
|
0.77815
|
1.881
|
2.879
|
|
7
|
95.137
|
4.863
|
0.867
|
2.64575
|
0.8451
|
1.978
|
1.694
|
|
8
|
99.019
|
0.981
|
0.008
|
2.82843
|
0.90309
|
1.996
|
0.994
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fig
22 - Zero Order Kinetics for Optimized Formulation F3
Fig
23 - First Order Kinetics
for Optimized Formulation F3
Fig 24 - Korsmeyer Peppas
Release Kinetics for Optimized Formulation F3
Fig 25 - Hixon Crowell Kinetics for Optimized Formulation F3
Fig 26- Higuchi Diffusion Kinetics for Optimized Formulation F3
The coefficient of determination (R2) was taken as
criteria for choosing the most appropriate model. The R2 values of various
kinetic models are in table 26.
Table 10: R2 values of
various kinetic models
|
Kinetic model
|
Coefficient of determination
(R2)
|
|
Zero order
|
0.956
|
|
First order
|
0.745
|
|
Korsmeyer
and Peppas
|
0.975
|
|
Hixson-Crowell
|
0.864
|
|
Higuchi
|
0.797
|
Ø The order of drug release was found
to be Zero order, in which regression value was 0.956.
Ø The ‘n’ value of Korsmeyer peppas
equation was found to be 1.372. From this it was concluded that the drug release follows a Super-Case II
transport in which the drug release mechanism may be due to polymer relaxation (erosion) alone.(D.
Chandra et al.),(Raj
et al. 2013)
Differential
Scanning Calorimetry
Pure mesalamine has an endothermic melting peak at
286˚C representing its crystalline
nature. Moreover, chitosan and pectin have a sharp endothermic peak at 320˚C
which is related to its crystalline matter and also the amount of water loss
which is linked to the hydrophilic
groups of the polymer. The calorimetry of magnetic microspheres demonstrated
mesalamine peak shifted from 286 to 283 ˚C, showing a reduction in its
glass-transition temperature. When the crystal part of network increases, the amorphous
part i.e., related to Tg decreases and the terminal zero shear viscosities of
the systems were always found to decrease upon microspheres addition,
paralleling the reduction of the Tg.
X
RAY DIFFRACTION
XRD patterns showed a sharp intense peak at
15.167° indicating that
the drug and the polymer existed in the
crystalline state.
CONCLUSION:
The
aim of the present study was to formulate magnetically responsive mesalamine microspheres by solvent evaporation method
by using biodegradable polymers (Chitosan and
Pectin) and to carry out the various pharmaceutical and magnetic
characterizations, to study the
effect of polymer type on in-vitro drug
release. In the present study, 3 formulations were prepared in total by using Chitosan
and Pectin as polymer in different ratios (1:1) of
each polymer and combination of two polymers. Also, the
effect of polymer type was studied.
Among the different formulations, F3 gave satisfactory results by releasing
100.64 % in 9 hours. The results
indicate that the chitosan-pectin microspheres substantially retarded the drug release and showed the best result
for the one with higher chitosan content (i.e., F3 formulation). The inter polymer complex that could be formed
between carboxyl groups of pectin and
the amino groups of chitosan, may be responsible for such delayed drug release. The in-vitro release study of optimized formulation F3 was applied to
various kinetic models to predict the
mechanism of drug release. The drug release was found to follow zero order kinetics. In Korsemeyer Peppas
equation, the n value was 1.372, indicating anomalous
diffusion or non-fickian diffusion, probably Super-Case II transport in which the drug release
mechanism may be due to polymer relaxation(erosion) alone.
FUTURE SCOPE
Ø In- vitro screening using cell culture
models
Ø In- vivo screening using animal models
(using gamma scintillography).
Ø Pharmacokinetic and toxicity study
Ø Combinational therapies showing
synergistic effect can also need to be studied.
The adoption of magnetic particles for targeted delivery is minimal and
most of the work is in the basic
research phase. Hence their potential
is yet to be realized fully. The future holds great promise for its systematic investigation and exploitation.
References:
Chandra, Bala Sekaran, Siva Santhosh
Bhogela, Manjusha Shaik, Chaitanya Sravanthi Vadlamudi, Meghana Chappa, and
Naga Sirisha Maddirala. 2011. “Simple and Sensitive Spectrophotometric Methods
for the Analysis of Mesalamine in Bulk and Tablet Dosage Forms.” Química
Nova 34 (6): 1068–73. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-40422011000600026.
Chandra, Dinesh, Indranil Kumar Yadav,
Hari Pratap Singh, and D A Jain. n.d. “Design and Development of Satranidazole
Microspheres For Colon Targeted Drug Delivery.” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
PHARMACEUTICAL AND CHEMICAL SCIENCES ISSN: 22775005 1 (3). Accessed March
19, 2023. www.ijpcsonline.com1510.
“Design and Characterization of
Cisplatin Magnetic Microspheres - IJPRS.” n.d. Accessed March 19, 2023.
https://www.ijprs.com/article/design-and-characterization-of-cisplatin-magnetic-microspheres/.
Guo, Liang, Guang Liu, Ruo Yu Hong, and
Hong Zhong Li. 2010. “Preparation and Characterization of Chitosan Poly(Acrylic
Acid) Magnetic Microspheres.” Marine Drugs 2010, Vol. 8, Pages 2212-2222
8 (7): 2212–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/MD8072212.
Jayvadan, K. P., V. P. Nirav, and H. S.
Shreeraj. 2009. “Formulation and In-Vitro Evaluation of Mesalamine Matrix
Tablets Using Chitosan for Colonic Drug Delivery.”
Kakar*, Satinder, and Ramandeep Singh.
2014. “6-Thioguanine Loaded Magnetic Microspheres as a New Drug Delivery System
to Cancer Patients.” African Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 8
(31): 786–92. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJPP2014.4104.
Kakar, Satinder, Deepa Batra, and
Ramandeep Singh. 2013. “Preparation and Evaluation of Magnetic Microspheres of
Mesalamine (5-Aminosalicylic Acid) for Colon Drug Delivery.” Journal of
Acute Disease 2 (3): 226–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2221-6189(13)60132-8.
Kaushik, Dinesh, Satish Sardana, and
DinaNath Mishra. 2010. “In-Vitro Characterization and Cytotoxicity Analysis of
5- Fluorouracil Loaded Chitosan Microspheres for Targeting Colon Cancer.” Indian
Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research 44 (3).
https://doi.org/Nill.
Lee, Sang Hoon, Rajiv Bajracharya, Jeong
Youn Min, Ji Won Han, Byeong Ju Park, and Hyo Kyung Han. 2020. “Strategic
Approaches for Colon Targeted Drug Delivery: An Overview of Recent
Advancements.” Pharmaceutics 2020, Vol. 12, Page 68 12 (1): 68.
https://doi.org/10.3390/PHARMACEUTICS12010068.
Mascolo, Maria Cristina, Yongbing Pei,
and Terry A. Ring. 2013. “Room Temperature Co-Precipitation Synthesis of
Magnetite Nanoparticles in a Large PH Window with Different Bases.” Materials
2013, Vol. 6, Pages 5549-5567 6 (12): 5549–67.
https://doi.org/10.3390/MA6125549.
Mounika, P, Dr K V Ratnamala, and M
Pharmacy. 2018. “REVIEW ARTICLE ON MAGNETIC MICROSPHERES” 5. www.jetir.org.
Mukesh, Ratnaparkhi P, Somvanshi U
Fattesingh, Pawar A Sham, Chaudhari P Shilpa, Gupta P Jyoti, and Budhavant A
Kalyani. 2013. “Colon Targeted Drug Delivery System.” International Journal
of Pharma Research & Review 2 (8): 33.
Nasab, Sara Hosayni, Amin Amani, Hossein
Ali Ebrahimi, and Ali Asghar Hamidi. 2021. “Design and Preparation of a New
Multi-Targeted Drug Delivery System Using Multifunctional Nanoparticles for
Co-Delivery of SiRNA and Paclitaxel.” Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis
11 (2): 163–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JPHA.2020.04.005.
Ofokansi, K. C., F. C. Kenechukwu, A. B.
Isah, and E. L. Okigbo. 2013. “Formulation and Evaluation of
Glutaraldehyde-Crosslinked Chitosan Microparticles for the Delivery of
Ibuprofen.” Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research 12 (1): 19–25.
https://doi.org/10.4314/TJPR.V12I1.4.
Paharia, Amol, Awesh K. Yadav, Gopal
Rai, Sunil K. Jain, Shyam S. Pancholi, and Govind P. Agrawal. 2007.
“Eudragit-Coated Pectin Microspheres of 5-Fluorouracil for Colon Targeting.” AAPS
PharmSciTech 8 (1): E87. https://doi.org/10.1208/PT0801012.
Patel, N., J. Patel, S. Shah, and J.
Patel. 2010. “Design, Development and in Vitro Evaluation of Mesalamine Tablets
Containing Pectin and Chitosan for Colon-Specific Drug Delivery.”
Patra, Jayanta Kumar, Amritesh C.
Shukla, and Gitishree Das. 2020. “Advances in Pharmaceutical Biotechnology:
Recent Progress and Future Applications.” Advances in Pharmaceutical
Biotechnology: Recent Progress and Future Applications, January, 1–478.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2195-9.
“Pharmaceutical Approaches to Colon
Targeted Drug Delivery Systems.” n.d. Accessed March 19, 2023.
https://sites.ualberta.ca/~csps/JPPS6(1)/S.Chourasia/colon.htm.
Raj, Behin Sundara, Shanthi, Rajesh
Sreedharan Nair, Punitha Isaac Samraj, and Vidya. 2013. “Formulation and
Evaluation of Coated Microspheres for Colon Targeting.” Journal of Applied
Pharmaceutical Science 3, (8,): S68–74.
https://doi.org/10.7324/JAPS.2013.38.S11.
Ritter, James M, Lionel D Lewis, Timothy
GK Mant, and Albert Ferro. 2008. A Textbook of Clinical Pharmacology and
Toxicology. Hodder Arnold. Hodder Arnold.
https://www.routledge.com/A-Textbook-of-Clinical-Pharmacology-and-Therapeutics-5Ed/Ritter-Lewis-Mant-Ferro/p/book/9780340900468.
Sharma, Madhu, Baibhav Joshi, Monika
Bansal, and Manish Goswami. 2012. “Formulation and Evaluation of Colon Targeted
Tablets of Mesalazine.” Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics 2 (5):
24–36. https://doi.org/10.22270/JDDT.V2I5.290.
Tewabe, Ashagrachew, Atlaw Abate, Manaye
Tamrie, Abyou Seyfu, and Ebrahim Abdela Siraj. 2021. “Targeted Drug Delivery —
From Magic Bullet to Nanomedicine: Principles, Challenges, and Future
Perspectives.” Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 14: 1711. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S313968.
Thakral, Naveen K., Alok R. Ray, Daniel
Bar-Shalom, André Huss Eriksson, and Dipak K. Majumdar. 2011. “The Quest for
Targeted Delivery in Colon Cancer: Mucoadhesive Valdecoxib Microspheres.” International
Journal of Nanomedicine 6: 1057–68. https://doi.org/10.21419561.