Efficacy of Levofloxacin Loaded Nonionic Surfactant Vesicles (Niosomes) in a Model of Infected Sprague Dawley Rats.

Satish Jankie, Jenelle Johnson, Amusa Sarafadeen Adebayo, Gopal Krishna Pillai, Lexley Maureen Pinto Pereira
Author Information
  1. Satish Jankie: School of Pharmacy, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago. ORCID
  2. Jenelle Johnson: School of Veterinary Medicine, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago. ORCID
  3. Amusa Sarafadeen Adebayo: College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sullivan University, Louisville, KY 40205, USA. ORCID
  4. Gopal Krishna Pillai: College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sullivan University, Louisville, KY 40205, USA.
  5. Lexley Maureen Pinto Pereira: Department of Paraclinical Sciences, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago. ORCID

Abstract

This study examined the effectiveness of niosomes loaded with levofloxacin in treating (American Type Culture Collection-ATCC 27853) infections in Sprague Dawley rats since these infections are becoming more common and resistant to treatment. Levofloxacin entrapped in niosomes was prepared using the thin-film hydration method and was assessed for in vitro release and stability. Three groups of six (6) animals were infected with a lethal dose of via the intraperitoneal (Ip) route. At six (6) hours postinfection, the animals were treated with either drug-free niosomes (control), free levofloxacin (conventional), or levofloxacin trapped in niosomes (Ip) at a dose of 7.5 mg/kg/once daily. Blood was collected via tail snips on days 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 for complete blood counts and viable bacterial counts (CFU/l). At day 10, the animals were sacrificed, and the kidney, liver, and spleen were harvested for bacterial counts. The niosomes showed a sustained drug release profile and were most stable at 4°C. All animals in the control group succumbed to the infection; one animal from the conventional group died, and all niosome treated animals survived at day 10. The mean lymphocyte count (×10) was lower for the niosome (7.258 ± 1.773) versus conventional group (17.684 ± 10.008) ( < 0.03) at day ten (10). Neutrophil counts (×10) were lower for the niosome (2.563 ± 1.609) versus conventional (6.2 ± 6.548) ( < 0.02) groups. Though CFUs in the bloodstream were comparable for both treatment groups, the niosome treated group showed a significant reduction of CFUs in the liver, kidney, and spleen versus the conventional group (1.33 ± 2.074) vs (5.8 ± 3.74) ( < 0.043), (1.5 ± 2.35) vs (9.6 ± 8.65) ( < 0.038) and (3.8 4.71) vs (25.6 14.66) ( < 0.007), respectively. These findings indicate that niosome is promising as a drug delivery system in treating systemic infections, but further work using niosomes with surface modification is recommended.

References

  1. BMC Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 7;20(1):269 [PMID: 32264851]
  2. J Control Release. 2019 Aug 10;307:32-43 [PMID: 31152749]
  3. J Thorac Dis. 2020 Feb;12(Suppl 1):S16-S21 [PMID: 32148922]
  4. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2016 May 17;6:52 [PMID: 27242970]
  5. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 Jun;39(6):1372-5 [PMID: 7574534]
  6. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2018 Jul 4;7:79 [PMID: 29997889]
  7. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2000 Feb 15;1463(2):254-66 [PMID: 10675504]
  8. Drugs. 1996 Jul;52(1):45-59 [PMID: 8799684]
  9. J Clin Lab Anal. 2013 Sep;27(5):407-11 [PMID: 24038228]
  10. Mol Pharm. 2019 May 6;16(5):1906-1916 [PMID: 30900903]
  11. Clin Infect Dis. 1994 Nov;19(5):926-30 [PMID: 7893881]
  12. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2020 Jan 13;22(1):1 [PMID: 31933158]
  13. J Clin Invest. 2017 Jun 1;127(6):2249-2261 [PMID: 28463232]
  14. Int J Pharm. 2019 Aug 15;567:118431 [PMID: 31207279]
  15. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020 May;18(5):286-298 [PMID: 32152509]
  16. Theranostics. 2017 Jan 1;7(2):319-328 [PMID: 28042337]
  17. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008 Dec;62(6):1291-7 [PMID: 18931388]
  18. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2019 Dec 05;7(1):1901872 [PMID: 31921562]
  19. Clin Chim Acta. 2016 Jun 1;457:46-53 [PMID: 27034055]
  20. Ther Deliv. 2014 Apr;5(4):409-27 [PMID: 24856168]
  21. Microb Cell. 2015 Aug 13;2(9):353-355 [PMID: 28357311]
  22. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014 Jun;58(6):3053-9 [PMID: 24637682]
  23. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 Sep;39(9):2104-11 [PMID: 8540724]
  24. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009 Oct;22(4):582-610 [PMID: 19822890]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0niosomes0animalsconventionalgroupniosome<610countslevofloxacininfectionsgroupstreated71dayversusvstreatingSpragueDawleytreatmentLevofloxacinusingreleasesixdoseviaIpcontrol35bacterialkidneyliverspleenshoweddrug×10lowerCFUsstudyexaminedeffectivenessloadedAmericanTypeCultureCollection-ATCC27853ratssincebecomingcommonresistantentrappedpreparedthin-filmhydrationmethodassessedvitrostabilityThreeinfectedlethalintraperitonealroutehourspostinfectioneitherdrug-freefreetrapped5 mg/kg/oncedailyBloodcollectedtailsnipsdayscompletebloodviableCFU/lsacrificedharvestedsustainedprofilestable4°Csuccumbedinfectiononeanimaldiedsurvivedmeanlymphocytecount258 ± 177317684 ± 1000803tenNeutrophil2563 ± 16092 ± 654802Thoughbloodstreamcomparablesignificantreduction33 ± 20748 ± 3740435 ± 23596 ± 8650388471251466007respectivelyfindingsindicatepromisingdeliverysystemsystemicworksurfacemodificationrecommendedEfficacyLoadedNonionicSurfactantVesiclesNiosomesModelInfectedRats

Similar Articles

Cited By