Potential Use of Microbial Surfactant in Microemulsion Drug Delivery System: A Systematic Review.
biosurfactant
drug delivery systems
lipopeptide
microemulsion
systematic review glycolipid
Journal
Drug design, development and therapy
ISSN: 1177-8881
Titre abrégé: Drug Des Devel Ther
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101475745
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
24
09
2019
accepted:
15
01
2020
entrez:
28
2
2020
pubmed:
28
2
2020
medline:
30
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Microemulsions drug delivery systems (MDDS) have been known to increase the bioavailability of hydrophobic drugs. The main challenge of the MDDS is the development of an effective and safe system for drug carriage and delivery. Biosurfactants are preferred surface-active molecules because of their lower toxicity and safe characteristics when compared to synthetic surfactants. Glycolipid and lipopeptide are the most common biosurfactants that were tested for MDDS. The main goal of the present systematic review was to estimate the available evidence on the role of biosurfactant in the development of MDDS. Literature searches involved the main scientific databases and were focused on the period from 2005 until 2017. The Search filter composed of two items: "Biosurfactant" and/or "Microemulsion." Twenty-four studies evaluating the use of biosurfactant in MDDS were eligible for inclusion. Among these 14 were related to the use of glycolipid biosurfactants in the MDDS formulations, while four reported using lipopeptide biosurfactants and six other related review articles. According to the output study parameters, biosurfactants acted as active stabilizers, hydrophilic or hydrophobic linkers and safety carriers in MDDS, and among them glycolipid biosurfactants had the most application in MDDS formulations. Synthetic surfactants could be replaced by biosurfactants as an effective bio-source for MDDS due to their excellent self-assembling and emulsifying activity properties.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Microemulsions drug delivery systems (MDDS) have been known to increase the bioavailability of hydrophobic drugs. The main challenge of the MDDS is the development of an effective and safe system for drug carriage and delivery. Biosurfactants are preferred surface-active molecules because of their lower toxicity and safe characteristics when compared to synthetic surfactants. Glycolipid and lipopeptide are the most common biosurfactants that were tested for MDDS. The main goal of the present systematic review was to estimate the available evidence on the role of biosurfactant in the development of MDDS.
SEARCH STRATEGY
METHODS
Literature searches involved the main scientific databases and were focused on the period from 2005 until 2017. The Search filter composed of two items: "Biosurfactant" and/or "Microemulsion."
INCLUSION CRITERIA
METHODS
Twenty-four studies evaluating the use of biosurfactant in MDDS were eligible for inclusion. Among these 14 were related to the use of glycolipid biosurfactants in the MDDS formulations, while four reported using lipopeptide biosurfactants and six other related review articles.
RESULTS
RESULTS
According to the output study parameters, biosurfactants acted as active stabilizers, hydrophilic or hydrophobic linkers and safety carriers in MDDS, and among them glycolipid biosurfactants had the most application in MDDS formulations.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Synthetic surfactants could be replaced by biosurfactants as an effective bio-source for MDDS due to their excellent self-assembling and emulsifying activity properties.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32103896
doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S232325
pii: 232325
pmc: PMC7008186
doi:
Substances chimiques
Drug Carriers
0
Emulsions
0
Glycolipids
0
Lipopeptides
0
Pharmaceutical Preparations
0
Surface-Active Agents
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
541-550Informations de copyright
© 2020 Ohadi et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Int J Pharm. 2017 Jun 30;526(1-2):425-442
pubmed: 28495500
J Biotechnol. 2010 Aug 2;148(4):221-5
pubmed: 20600381
Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2008 Aug 1;65(1):106-12
pubmed: 18456469
J Colloid Interface Sci. 2010 Aug 15;348(2):498-504
pubmed: 20471022
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2000 May;53(5):495-508
pubmed: 10855707
Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2017 Mar 1;151:232-239
pubmed: 28013167
J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010 Jul;20(7):1061-8
pubmed: 20668398
Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2011 Dec;31(4):354-64
pubmed: 21254833
Drug Discov Today. 2008 Jul;13(13-14):606-12
pubmed: 18598917
Int J Mol Sci. 2011;12(6):3821-30
pubmed: 21747709
Carbohydr Res. 2014 Jun 17;392:1-6
pubmed: 24814655
Biomed Pharmacother. 2017 Oct;94:1186-1196
pubmed: 28830069
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006 Apr;57(4):609-18
pubmed: 16469849
J Oleo Sci. 2012;61(5):285-9
pubmed: 22531056
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
Int J Biol Macromol. 2018 Jun;112:712-719
pubmed: 29425877
Front Pharmacol. 2017 Oct 26;8:761
pubmed: 29123482
Front Microbiol. 2013 Nov 21;4:332
pubmed: 24312083
Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2008 Jan;5(1):119-35
pubmed: 18095932
Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2017;18(11):900-908
pubmed: 29173159
Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2012 Aug;9(8):937-51
pubmed: 22663249
Mol Biotechnol. 2016 Apr;58(4):287-98
pubmed: 26961910
Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2019 Mar;187(3):708-723
pubmed: 30039475
Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2000 Dec 6;45(1):89-121
pubmed: 11104900
Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2013 Dec;34(12):667-75
pubmed: 24182625
J Oleo Sci. 2008;57(1):55-9
pubmed: 18075224
Drug Discov Today. 2015 Jan;20(1):136-46
pubmed: 25241656
N Biotechnol. 2017 May 25;36:26-36
pubmed: 28065676
Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2010 Sep;7(9):1031-48
pubmed: 20716018
Int J Mol Sci. 2011 Feb 18;12(2):1232-44
pubmed: 21541055
J Colloid Interface Sci. 2015 Jul 1;449:304-16
pubmed: 25655712