4.5 Article

Alternative foaming agents for topical treatment of ulcerative colitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 1448-1456

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.36324

关键词

foam drug delivery; ulcerative colitis; sodium caseinate; l--phosphatidylcholine; Pluronic (R) F-127

资金

  1. Crohn's & Colitis Foundation of America (CCFA) Career Award
  2. PhRMA Foundation Research Starter Award [348137]
  3. McGee-Wagner Interdisciplinary Research Foundation [RSGTMT17]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Approximately 907,000 Americans currently suffer from ulcerative colitis, a condition characterized by inflammation of the large intestine or rectum. Treatment of this disease often includes anti-inflammatory medication or immunosuppressants. Here foams are an attractive delivery platform, offering relatively high bioavailability, low systemic exposure, and improved patient comfort. However, the surfactants that generate these foams may adversely affect the diseased mucosa. Therefore, this project evaluated two alternative surfactants for use in topical drug delivery platforms: sodium caseinate and l--phosphatidylcholine. Both were compared to the biocompatible surfactant Pluronic((R)) F-127 using stability and density tests, and biocompatibility tests performed on mini-guts. Sodium caseinate foams were less stable but denser than Pluronic((R)) foams; however, they exhibited an unexpectedly low shelf-life. l--phosphatidylcholine was an unsuccessful primary foaming agent owing to poor foamability at low concentrations. Mini-gut growth rates were not significantly altered by surfactants, while morphology and an MTT assay identified Pluronic((R)) as the most biocompatible surfactant at higher concentrations. These results clarify the possible challenges that the tested surfactants may present in topical delivery platforms and show the relevance of permeability to tissue-surfactant interaction tests. (c) 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 106A: 1448-1456, 2018.

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

4.5
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