Effects of chitosan coating on physical properties and pharmacokinetic behavior of mitoxantrone liposomes

Figures & data

Figure 1 Transmission electron micrographs of A) uncoated liposomes and B) CH-coated liposomes. Bar is 100 nm.

Figure 2 The influence of CH concentration on the size of CH-coated liposomes (n = 3).

Figure 3 The influence of CH concentration on the zeta potential of CH-coated liposomes (n = 3).

Figure 4 The effect of CH concentration on the entrapment efficiency of MTO (n = 3).

Figure 5 The desorption of CH from the coated liposomes (♦) using CH solution as control (▪) (n = 3).

Figure 6 Relative particle size of liposomes coated with CH after FD-RH compared to that before FD-RH.

Figure 7 In vitro release of MTO from uncoated liposomes (♦), CH-coated liposomes (0.6%) (▪), and CH-coated liposomes (0.3%) (▴) in serum using MTO aqueous solution as control (–) (n = 3).

Figure 8 Semi-log plasma concentration-time profiles in rats after intravenous administration of MTO solution (▪), uncoated liposomes (♦), CH-coated liposomes (0.6%) (▴), and CH-coated liposomes (0.3%) (•) (n = 6).

Table 1 Mean pharmacokinetic parameters of MTO after intravenous administration of MTO solution, uncoated liposomes, CH (0.3%) and CH (0.6%)-coated liposomes

Parameters	Solution	Uncoated liposomes	CH-coated liposomes (0.6%)	CH-coated liposomes (0.3%)
AUC (μg*mL^−1* min)	162.33 ± 12.10	1193.50 ± 143.27*	1709.09 ± 203.53*,#	2738.16 ± 17.86*,#,
MRT (min)	18.73 ± 0.52	35.67 ± 4.76*	47.74 ± 0.96*,#	62.10 ± 2.15*#,
t1/2 (min)	19.33 ± 1.23	35.07 ± 5.25*	46.73 ± 2.84*,#	50.22 ± 1.04*#

Notes: Each value is the mean ± standard deviation, n = 6.

* P < 0.05, compared with MTO solution;

# P < 0.05, compared with uncoated liposomes;

P < 0.05, compared with CH-coated liposomes (0.6%).