IN VITRO IN VIVO EVALUATION OF NIOSOMAL FORMULATION OF FAMOTIDINE
Objective: The present study was aimed on formulation and evaluation of famotidine loaded niosomal formulation for in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic behaviour. Formulating it as niosomal formulation might be quite advantageous for prolonging the duration of pharmacological action and improved bioavailability.
Methods: In the present study niosomal formulations were prepared by using most documented thin film hydration technique by using various grades of surfactants (span 20, 40, 60, 80) in varying ratios with cholesterol, negative charge inducer di cetyl phosphate (DCP) and drug famotidine. Suitable preformulation studies were conducted like identification of drug, excipient and drug compatibility study. The optimized drug loaded niosomes were characterized for size and morphology, polydispersity index, zeta potential, drug entrapment, in vitro release, in vivo study and stability study.
Results: The results showed that the vesicles formed were spherical in shape, size ranging between 160.1 nm to 718.7 nm with zeta potential values indicating good stability and formulation containing span 60 (NMS7) showed the highest entrapment efficiency (73.234%). All the formulations showed prolonged release profile for more than 24 h with release kinetics better suited to zero order release pattern. In vivo study conducted on rabbits predicted a fourfold increase in pharmacokinetic parameter (area under curve)AUC and pharmacological action for more than 24 h as compared to free drug famotidine which showed its action only upto 12 h.
Conclusion: Thus the famotidine loaded niosomal formulation may be considered as a very promising drug delivery system which could be successfully employed for prolonging the drug release and overcoming the drawbacks of conventional drug delivery systems.
2. Mokale VJ, Patil HI, Patil AP, Shirude PR, Naik JB. Formulation and optimisation of famotidine proniosomes: an in vitro and ex vivo study. J Exp Nanosci 2016;11:97-110.
3. Khan R, Irchhaiya R. Niosomes: a potential tool for novel drug delivery. J Pharm Investig 2016;46:195-204.
4. Prescott LF, Nimmo WS. Novel drug delivery and its therapeutic applications. New York: John Wiley and sons Inc; 1989.
5. Asthana GS, Sharma PK, Asthana A. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of niosomal formulation for controlled delivery of clarithromycin. Scientifica 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/ 2016/6492953
6. Vyas J, Vyas P, Sawant K. Formulation and evaluation of topical niosomal gel of erythromycin. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2011;3:123-6.
7. Ammar HO, Ghorab M, El-Nahhas SA, Higazy IM. Proniosomes as a carrier system for transdermal delivery of tenoxicam. Int J Pharm 2011;405:142-52.
8. Mokhtar M, Sammour OA, Hammad MA, Megrab NA. Effect of some formulation parameters on flurbiprofen encapsulation and release rates of niosomes prepared from proniosomes. Int J Pharm 2008;361:104-11.
9. Kumar BS, Krishna R, Lakshmi PS, Vasudev DT, Nair SC. Formulation and evaluation of niosomal suspension of cefixime. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2017;10:194-201.
10. Balakrishnana P, Shanmugam S, Lee WS. Formulation and in vitro assessment of minoxidil niosomes for enhanced skin delivery. Int J Pharm 2009;377:1-8.
11. Mukherjee B, Patra B, Layek B, Mukherjee A. Sustained release of acyclovir from nano-liposome and nano-niosomes: an in vitro study. Int J Nanomed 2007;2:213-25.
12. Ruckmani K, Jayakar B, Ghosal SK. Nonionic surfactant vesicles(niosomes) of cytarabine hydrochloride for effective treatment of leukemias: encapsulation, storage, and in vitro release. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2000;26:217–22.
13. Aggarwal D, Kaur IP. Improved pharmacodynamics of timolol maleate from a mucoadhesive niosomal ophthalmic drug delivery system. Int J Pharm 2005;290:155-9.
14. Omaima N El Gazayerly, Ahmed HH. Preparation and evaluation of acetazolamide liposomes as an ocular delivery system. Int J Pharm 1997;158:121-7.
15. Junyaprasert VB, Manwiwattanakul G. Release profile comparison and stability of diltiazem-resin microcapsules in sustained release suspensions. Int J Pharm 2008;352:81-91.
16. El-Samaligy MS, Afifi NN, Mahmoud EA. Increasing bioavailability of silymarin using a buccal liposomal delivery system: preparation and experimental design investigation. Int J Pharm 2006;308:140-8.
17. Ritger PL, Peppas NA. A simple equation for description of solute release I. Fickian and non-fickian release from nonswellable devices in the form of slabs, spheres, cylinders or discs. J Controlled Release 1987;5:23–36.
18. Pandey H, Parashar V, Parashar R, Prakash R, Ramteke PW, Pandey AC. Controlled drug release characteristics and enhanced antibacterial effect of graphene nanosheets containing gentamicin sulfate. Nanoscale 2011;11:29-36.
19. Kamboj S, Saini V, Bala S. Formulation and characterization of drug loaded nonionic surfactant vesicles (Niosomes) for oral bioavailability enhancement. Sci World J 2014:1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/959741
20. Sharma UK, Verma A, Prajapati SK, Pandey H, Pandey AC. In vitro, in vivo and pharmacokinetic assessment of amikacin sulphate laden polymeric nanoparticles meant for controlled ocular drug delivery. Appl Nanosci 2015;5:143-55.
21. Jayakrishnan A, Joseph NJ, Lakshmi S. A floating type oral dosage form for peroxicam based on hollow polycarbonate microspheres: in vitro and in vivo evaluation in rabbits. J Controlled Release 2002;79:71-9.
22. Mastiholimath VS, Dandagi PM, Gadad AP, Mathews R, Kulkarni AR. In vitro in vivo evaluation of ranitidine hydrochloride ethyl cellulose floating microparticles. J Microencapsulation 2008;25:307-14.
23. Mishra V, Kaur R. Formulation and pharmacokinetic study of famotidine loaded microballons. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2012;4:511-5.
24. Azeem A, Anwer MK, Talegaonkar S. Niosomes in sustained and targeted drug delivery: some recent advances. J Drug Target 2009;17:671-89.
25. Hao YM, Li K. Entrapment and release difference resulting from hydrogen bonding interactions in niosomes. Int J Pharm 2011;403:245-53.
26. Yoshioka T, Sternberg B, Florence AT. Preparation and properties of vesicles (niosomes) of sorbitan monoesters (Span 20, 40, 60 and 80) and a sorbitan triester (Span 85). Int J Pharm 1994;105:1-6.
27. Kibbe AH. Handbook of pharmaceutical excepients. Washington DC; 2000.
28. Biswal S, Murthy PN, Sahu J, Sahoo P, Amir F. Vesicles of non-ionic surfactants (niosomes) and drug delivery potential. Int J Pharm Sci Nanotechnol 2008;1:1–8.
29. Guinedi AS, Mortada ND, Mansour S, Hathout RM. Preparation and evaluation of reverse-phase evaporation and multilamellar niosomes as ophthalmic carriers of acetazolamide. Int J Pharm 2005;306:71–82.
30. Hao Y, Zhao F, Li N, Yang Y, Li K. Studies on high encapsulation of cholchicine by a noisome system. Int J Pharm 2002;224:73-80.
31. Bayindir ZS, Yuksel N. Characterization of niosomes prepared with various non ionic surfactants for paclitaxel oral delivery. J Pharm Sci 2010;99:2049-60.
32. Nasr M, Mansour S, Mortada ND, Elshamy AA. Vesicular aceclofenac systems: a comparative study between liposomes and niosomes. J Microencapsul 2008;25:499-512.
33. Saraswathi TS, Mothilal M, Jaganathan MK. Niosomes as an emerging formulation tool for drug delivery-a review. Int J Appl Pharm 2019;11:7-15.
34. Badran M. Formulation and in vitro evaluation of flufenamic acid loaded deformable liposome for improved skin delivery. Digest J Nanomater Biostruct 2014;9:83-91.
35. Chen M, Liu X, Fahr A. Skin penetration and deposition of carboxyfluorescein and temoporfin from different lipid vesicular systems: in vitro study with finite and infinite dosage application. Int J Pharm 2011;408:223–34.
36. Putri DCA, Dwiastuti R, Marchaban M, Nugroho AK. Optimization of mixing temperature and sonication duration in liposome preparation. J Pharm Sci Commun 2017;14:79–85.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.