Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Celecoxib, a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor widely prescribed for the symptomatic management of osteoarthritis, is a Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) Class II drug whose poor aqueous solubility and cardio-gastrointestinal liabilities on chronic oral dosing limit its clinical utility. The present study aimed to formulate and evaluate celecoxib-loaded niosomal matrix-type transdermal patches as a non-invasive alternative capable of sustaining drug release and reducing systemic exposure. Niosomes were prepared by the thin-film hydration technique using Span 60 and cholesterol at three molar ratios (1:1:1, 1:2:1 and 1:2:2); the 1:1:1 formulation (F1) showed the highest entrapment efficiency (93.24%), a mean particle size of 616.0 nm, a polydispersity index of 0.315 and a zeta potential of −32.7 mV, and was selected for patch fabrication. Matrix-type transdermal patches were prepared by the solvent-casting method using HPMC K100 and PVP K30 as film-forming polymers, optimised through a 3² factorial design (nine batches, F1–F9). Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy confirmed the absence of significant drug–excipient interaction. The optimised patch (F3, high HPMC K100 and high PVP K30) exhibited satisfactory physicomechanical properties (weight 192.6 ± 2.1 mg, thickness 0.53 ± 0.01 mm, folding endurance 290 ± 6, surface pH 5.86 ± 0.04, drug content 98.40 ± 0.45%) and released 71.0% of celecoxib over 12 h in-vitro, compared with 85% released from a plain (non-vesicular) patch over the same period, confirming that vesicular entrapment sustained drug release. Release data best fitted the Higuchi model (R² = 0.992), with a Korsmeyer–Peppas exponent (n = 0.68) indicative of non-Fickian (anomalous) transport combining diffusion and polymer relaxation. These findings suggest that incorporating niosomes into a matrix-type transdermal patch is a promising controlled-release approach for transdermal delivery of celecoxib in osteoarthritis management and warrants further ex vivo permeation and in vivo evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pandian C.1*, Praveen Kumar D.1, Gowtham A.2, Pooja B.2, Gunaseelan M.2, Keerthana M.2 (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: