PURPOSE: The aims of this experimental work were the incorporation and full characterization of the system Tretinoin-in-dimethyl-beta-cyclodextrin-in-ultradeformable vesicles (Tretinoin-CyD-UDV) and Tretinoin-in-ultradeformable vesicles (Tretinoin-UDV). METHODS: The Tretinoin-CyD complex was prepared by kneading and the UDV by adding soybean phosphatidylcholine (SPC) to Tween® 80 followed by an appropriate volume of sodium phosphate buffer solution to make a 10%-20% lipid suspension. The resulting suspension was brought to the final mean vesicles size, of approximately 150 nm, by sequential filtration. The physicochemical characterization was based on: the evaluation of mean particle size and polydispersity index (PI) measured by photon correlation spectroscopy (PCS) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) topographic imaging; zeta potential (ζ-potential) and the SPC concentration determined by Laser-Doppler anemometry and an enzymatic-colorimetric test, respectively. The quantification of the incorporated Tretinoin and its chemical stability (during preparation and storage) was assayed by a HPLC at 342 nm. RESULTS: It was possible to obtain the system Tretinoin-CyD-UDV. The mean vesicle size was the most stable parameter during experiments time course. AFM showed that Tretinoin-CyD-UDV samples were very heterogeneous in size, having three distinct subpopulations, while Tretinoin-UDV samples had only one homogeneous size population. The results of the ζ-potential measurements have shown that vesicle surface charge was low, as expected, presenting negative values. The incorporation efficiency was high, and no significant differences between Tretinoin-CyD-UDV and Tretinoin-UDV were observed. However, only Tretinoin-UDV with 20% lipid concentration formulation remained chemically stable during the evaluation period. CONCLUSION: According to our results, Tretinoin-UDV with 20% lipid concentration seems to be a better approach than Tretinoin-CyD-UDV, attending to the higher chemical stability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ascenso et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: