Issue

Vol. 34 No. 2 (2022): Vol 34 Issue 2

Copyright (c) 2022 AJC

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Optimization and Evaluation of Piperine Loaded Herbosomes for their Antioxidant and Hepatoprotective Potential

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2022.23554
Gayatri Joshi
Faculty of Pharmacy, IFTM University Moradabad-244102, India
Abhishek Tiwari
Faculty of Pharmacy, IFTM University Moradabad-244102, India
Prashant Upadhyay
Faculty of Pharmacy, IFTM University Moradabad-244102, India

Corresponding Author(s) : Gayatri Joshi

gayatrijoshi044@gmail.com

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 34 No. 2 (2022): Vol 34 Issue 2

Abstract

Piperine is classified as a class II drug in the biopharmaceutical classification system due to its low aqueous solubility. As a result, piperine herbosomes were created to improve the dissolution rate and in vivo liver protecting activity of piperine and physico-chemical characteristics were used to confirm herbosome formation. The piperine-herbosome formulation revealed spherical particle size of all formulations from P1-P10 and found142.4 ± 0.98 nm for best piperine-herbosome formulation (P2) and a PDI value of 0.237, indicating a homogeneous population of piperine loaded vesicles. In vitro drug release rate and percent entrapment efficiency were determined for all formulations P1-P25 and found to be 95.306 ± 0.21 and 97.306 ± 0.65 in 12 h, respectively for best piperine-herbosome formulation (P2). It exemplifies the complex’s long-term releasing capability. This information suggests that it may have a longer retention time inside the body, extending the duration of effect. The antioxidant potential of pure piperine was determined using the DPPH scavenging method, with an IC50 value of 107.59 ± 0.11 g/mL compared to a formulation with an IC50 value of 93.926 ± 0.03 g/mL. Swiss albino mice of either sex were utilized for the evaluation of hepatoprotective activity. On the 8th day, the hepatotoxicity was caused by giving a single oral dosage of CCl4 (0.5 mL) and the parameters were evaluated on the 9th day. This formulation has the best optimized based on drug content and drug entrapment. Serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT), serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase (SGPT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and total bilirubin were among the biochemical markers measured. In comparison to normal control (161 ± 0.31 IU/L, 52.78 ± 0.28 IU/L, 121.12 ± 0.14 IU/L and 0.633 ± 1.44 IU/L) and P2 formulation (163.23 ± 0.49 IU/L, 66.9 ± 0.05 IU/L, 128.3 ± 1.15 IU/L and 0.645 ± 0.67 IU/L respectively).

Keywords

Piperine Herbosomes Antioxidant Hepatotoxicity Serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase Alkaline phosphatase
Joshi, G., Tiwari, A., & Upadhyay, P. (2022). Optimization and Evaluation of Piperine Loaded Herbosomes for their Antioxidant and Hepatoprotective Potential. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 34(2), 383–388. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2022.23554
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. B. Chopra, A.K. Dhingra, R.P. Kapoor and D.N. Prasad, Open Chem. J., 3, 75 (2016); https://doi.org/10.2174/1874842201603010075
  2. L. Gorgani, M. Mohammadi, G.D. Najafpour and M. Nikzad, Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf., 16, 124 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12246
  3. C.R. Filburn, R. Kettenacker and D.W. Griffin, J. Vet. Pharmacol. Ther., 30, 132 (2007); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2885.2007.00834.x
  4. K. Maiti, K. Mukherjee, A. Gantait, B.P. Saha and P.K. Mukherjee, Int. J. Pharm., 330, 155 (2007); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2006.09.025
  5. A. Singh, A.P. Singh and N. Verma, Asian J. Chem., 23, 5189 (2011).
  6. S. Tripathy, D.K. Patel, L. Barob and S.K. Naira, J. Drug Deliv. Ther., 3, 147 (2013); https://doi.org/10.22270/jddt.v3i3.508
  7. V. Srikanth, Ch. Laxmaiah, B.G. Shankar, P. Navee. B. Chiranjeeb and T.S. Gouda, Int. J. Pharm. Rev. Dev, 3, 175 (2011).
  8. P. Rathore and G. Swami, Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Res., 3, 737 (2012).
  9. S. Moscarella, A. Giusti, F. Marra, C. Marena, M. Lampertico, P. Relli, P. Gentilini and G. Buzzelli, Curr. Ther. Res. Clin. Exp., 53, 98 (1993); https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-393X(05)80160-2
  10. M. Thomas, Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci., 2, 10 (2010).
  11. R.B. Chandrashekhar, R.Y. Narsimha and R.V. Malla, Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Nano Technol., 1, 87 (2018); https://doi.org/10.37285/10.37285/ijpsn.2008.1.1.8
  12. W.W. Epstein, D.F. Netz and J.L. Seidel, J. Chem. Educ., 70, 598 (1993); https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p598
  13. A.N. Sahu and S. Sharma, Pharmacognosy Res., 8, 29 (2016); https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-8490.171102
  14. J.J. Bhise, O.G. Bhusnure, S.R. Jagtap, S.B. Gholve and R.R. Wale, J. Drug Deliv. Therap., 9, 924 (2019); https://doi.org/10.22270/jddt.v9i3-s.2863
  15. S. Bose and B. Michniak-Kohn, Eur. J. Pharm. Sci., 48, 442 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2012.12.005
  16. G. Nahak and R.K. Sahu, J. Appl. Pharm. Sci., 1, 157 (2011).
  17. A. Szerlauth, S. Muráth, S. Viski and I. Szilagyi, Heliyon, 5, e02763 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02763
  18. S. Chunlaratthanaphorn, N. Lertprasertsuke, U. Srisawat, A. Thuppia, A. Ngamjariyawat, N. Suwanlikhid and K. Jaijoy, Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol., 29(Suppl. 1), 109 (2007).
  19. E.P. Sabina, A.D.H. Souriyan, D. Jackline and M.K. Rasool, Asian Pac. J. Trop., 3, 971 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1016/S1995-7645(11)60011-4
  20. S. Giacomelli, D. Gallo, P. Apollonio, C. Ferlini, M. Distefano, P. Morazzoni, A. Riva, E. Bombardelli, S. Mancuso and G. Scambia, Life Sci., 70, 1447 (2002); https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3205(01)01511-9
  21. Q. Lv, A. Yu, Y. Xi, H. Li, Z. Song, J. Cui, F. Cao and G. Zhai, Int. J. Pharm., 372, 191 (2009); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2009.01.014
  22. A. Salunke and N. Upmanyu, Adv. Pharm. Bull., 11, 286 (2020); https://doi.org/10.34172/apb.2021.041
  23. Indian Pharmacopoeia, The Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission, Ghaziabad, India, Ed.: 5 (2007).
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0