4.7 Article

Development and Characterization of Eudragit®-Based Electrospun Nanofibrous Mats and Their Formulation into Nanofiber Tablets for the Modified Release of Furosemide

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11090480

关键词

furosemide; Eudragit (R); electrospinning; nanofibers; tablets; modified release

资金

  1. research project MARINOVA [70/3/14684]
  2. research project BioNP [70/3/14685]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Furosemide, a chloride channel blocker ordinarily used as a high-ceiling or loop diuretic, is practically insoluble in water and dilute acids. Due to its acidic nature, furosemide is mostly absorbed in the stomach and in the upper small intestine. Efforts have focused on the development of sustained release systems of furosemide in order to improve the effectiveness of the drug, which exhibits poor aqueous solubility and poor permeability. Recently, electrospun nanofibrous drug delivery systems have emerged as promising alternative solid-dosage forms due to their advantages of high porosity, high surface to volume ratio, and high drug-loading efficacy. Herein, a number of nanofibrous mats composed of different types of Eudragit polymers in various concentrations and combinations loaded with furosemide were designed, successfully electrospun, and characterized using SEM, FTIR, DSC, and TGA analyses. The nanofibrous nonwovens were formulated in nanofiber tablets and the release profile of furosemide from them was evaluated at pH 1.2 and 6.8 and compared to that of physical mixture matrix tablets of analogous composition as well as to that of a commercial formulation. It was found that the release of furosemide was compatible with the gastroretentive and slower intestinal release requirements with a well-defined absorption window, while some nanofiber formulations could act as furosemide carriers in emergency situations where a relatively fast onset of its action is required, as in the case of critically ill post-traumatic patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据