4.6 Article

Solid lipid nanoparticles as anti-inflammatory drug delivery system in a human inflammatory bowel disease whole-blood model

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 39, 期 5, 页码 428-436

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2010.01.013

关键词

Solid lipid nanoparticles; Inflammatory bowel diseases; Butyrate; Dexamethasone; Cytokines

资金

  1. Fondazione Compagnia di San Paolo, Italy [2002.2003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Standard treatment for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) necessitates frequent intake of anti-inflammatory and/or immunosuppressive drugs, leading to significant adverse events. To evaluate the role solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) play as drug delivery system in enhancing anti-inflammatory activity for drugs such as dexamethasone and butyrate in a human inflammatory bowel diseases whole-blood model. ELISA assay and the peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) cytokine mRNA expression levels were evaluated by quantitative SYBR Green real-time RT-PCR to determine the IL-1 beta, TNF-alpha, IFN-gamma and IL-10 secretion in inflammatory bowel diseases patients' PBMC culture super-natants. There was a significant decrease in IL-1 beta (p < 0.01) and TNF-alpha (p < 0.001) secretion, whilst IL-10 (p < 0.05) secretion significantly increased after cholesteryl butyrate administration, compared to that of butyrate alone at the highest concentration tested (100 mu M), at 24 h exposure. There was a significant decrease in IL-1 beta (p < 0.01), TNF-alpha (p < 0.001) and IL-10 (p < 0.001) secretion after dexamethasone loaded SLN administration, compared to dexamethasone alone at the highest concentration tested (250 nM) at 24 h exposure. No IFN-gamma was detected under any conditions and no cytotoxic effects observed even at the highest concentration tested. The incorporation of butyrate and dexamethasone into SLN has a significant positive anti-inflammatory effect in the human inflammatory bowel disease whole-blood model. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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