No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundPharmacokinetic studies are vital in development and optimization of drugs. While blood samples can be collected either in EDTA, heparin or citrate containing tubes for the estimation of drug levels in plasma, EDTA tubes are more commonly used. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of anticoagulants on bioanalysis of drugs. Six drugs used extensively in cancer therapy were selected. Albino wistar rats (N = 6 per drug) were dosed with one of the following drugs intraperitoneally—pemetrexed (50 mg/kg), imatinib (50 mg/kg), erlotinib (25 mg/kg), meropenem (60 mg/kg), 6-mercaptopurine (20 mg/kg) and voriconazole (6 mg/kg). Blood samples were collected 2 h after dosing (1 h in 6-mercaptopurine group due to short half-life) by terminal bleeding from the retro-orbital plexus. Blood was collected in each of Disodium ETDA, heparin, trisodium citrate (TSC) and no anticoagulant (plain) tubes. Drug levels in these samples were determined by validated HPLC assays. ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test was performed to identify statistically significant differences in drug concentrations in anticoagulant tubes. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsSignificant differences in concentration between anticoagulant tubes was observed in case of erlotinib (p = 0.013) and meropenem (p = 0.00), while borderline statistical significance for pemetrexed (p = 0.076). TSC tubes overestimated erlotinib levels, heparin tubes underestimated meropenem concentrations and EDTA tubes overestimated pemetrexed concentrations.ConclusionsCareful selection of anti-coagulant is necessary for accurate characterization of pharmacokinetics of drugs. Routine use of EDTA tubes may lead to erroneous interpretation of pharmacokinetic data.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40064-016-3770-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nanoparticles have specific physicochemical properties different to bulk materials of the same composition and such properties make them very attractive for commercial and medical applications. Mucoadhesive nanoparticulate dosage forms are designed to enable prolonged retention of these nanoparticles at the site of application, providing a controlled drug release for improved therapeutic outcome. Moreover, drug delivery across the mucosa bypasses the first-pass hepatic metabolism and avoids the degradation by gastrointestinal enzymes. However, like most new technologies, there is a rising debate concerning the possible transmucosal side effects resulting from the use of particles at the nano level. In fact, these nanoparticles on entering the body, deposit in several organs and may cause adverse biological reactions by modifying the physiochemical properties of living matter. Several investigators have found nanoparticles responsible for toxicity in different organs. In addition, the toxicity of nanoparticles also depends on whether they are persistent or cleared from the different organs of entry and whether the host can raise an effective response to sequester or dispose of the particles. In contrast to many efforts aimed at exploiting desirable properties of nanoparticles for medicine, there are limited attempts to evaluate potentially undesirable effects of these particles when administered intentionally for medical purposes. This chapter focuses on the overview of the mucosal systems, fate of nanoparticles, mechanism of nanoparticle's toxicity and the various toxicity issues associated with nanoparticles through mucosal routes.