- •Drug Product Development for the Back of the Eye
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 A Strategic Overview of Drug Delivery Systems
- •1.3 Specific Approaches to Drug Delivery for the Posterior Segment
- •1.3.1 The Influence of Physicochemical Properties on Drug Delivery and Pharmacokinetics
- •1.3.2 The Chosen Route of Administration
- •1.3.3 Location of the Target Tissue
- •1.3.4 Potency of the Drug
- •1.3.5 Need for Continuous or Pulsatile Delivery
- •1.3.6 Duration of Drug Delivery Necessary to Induce and Maintain Efficacy
- •1.3.7 Type of Drug Delivery System Selected
- •1.3.8 Pharmacokinetic (PK) Properties of the Drug
- •1.3.9 Local and Systemic Toxicity of the Drug and its Metabolites
- •1.3.10 Previous Ocular Use of Excipients
- •1.3.11 Development and Strategic Team Input
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 Posterior Segment as a Sampling Site
- •2.3 Principle of Microdialysis
- •2.3.1 Extraction Efficiency/Recovery
- •2.4.1 Anesthetized Animal Models
- •2.4.2 Conscious Animal Model
- •2.5 Vitreal Pharmacokinetics in Animals Other than Rabbits
- •2.6 Summary
- •References
- •3.1 Commercial Fluorophotometer
- •3.2 Normal Human Subject and Rabbit Ocular Fluorescence
- •3.3 Fluorophotometry Applications
- •3.3.1 Tear Turnover Rate (%/min)
- •3.3.2 Corneal Epithelial Cell Layer Permeability Methodologies
- •3.3.3 Eye Bath Technique
- •3.3.4 Single Drop Technique to Measure Epithelial Permeability
- •3.3.5 Eye Bath Technique to Measure Epithelial Permeability
- •3.4 Clinical Applications of Fluorophotometry
- •3.5.1 Transscleral Pathways
- •3.5.2 Suprachoroidal Injection
- •3.6 Retrobulbar Fluorescein Injection
- •3.7 Intravenous Fluorescein Injection In Vivo
- •3.8 Ocular Uptake of Fluorescein from Topical Eye Drops
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.1.1 Role of the Blood-Retinal Barrier as a Dynamic Interface
- •4.1.2 Potential Approach of Blood-Retinal Barrier-Targeted Systemic Drug Delivery to the Retina
- •4.2.1 Amino Acid-Mimetic Drugs
- •4.2.2 Monocarboxylic Drugs
- •4.2.3 Nucleoside Analogs
- •4.2.4 Folate Analogs
- •4.2.5 Organic Cationic Drugs
- •4.2.6 Opioid Peptides and Peptidomimetic Drugs
- •4.2.7 Antioxidants
- •4.2.7.1 Vitamin C
- •4.2.7.2 Vitamin E
- •4.2.7.3 Cystine
- •4.2.8 Miscellaneous Protective Compounds
- •4.2.8.1 Creatine
- •4.2.8.2 Taurine
- •4.3.1 Organic Anion Transporter 3 (OAT3, SLC22A8)
- •4.3.3 P-Glycoprotein (ABCB1)
- •4.3.4 Multidrug Resistance-Associated Proteins (ABCCs)
- •4.3.6 ABCAs
- •4.4 Conclusions and Perspectives
- •References
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 Drug Distribution
- •5.2.1 Drug Distribution from the Anterior Ocular Surface to the Posterior Segment
- •5.2.2 Studies of Trans-Corneal and Periocular Drug Delivery to the Retina
- •5.2.2.1 The Uvea-Scleral Route
- •5.3 Eye Drops for Posterior Segment Diseases in the Clinic
- •5.4 Summary
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.2 Vitreous Anatomy
- •6.2.1 The Inner Limiting Membrane
- •6.3 The Vitreous As a Drug Reservoir
- •6.4 Flow Processes in the Vitreous
- •6.4.1 Flow Patterns
- •6.4.2 Injection and Hydrostatic Effects
- •6.4.3 Diffusion
- •6.4.4 Convective Flow
- •6.5 Clearance Pathways from the Vitreous Compartment
- •6.5.1 Charge and Collagen Interaction
- •6.5.2 Aqueous Clearance
- •6.5.3 Retinal Clearance
- •6.6 Transfer Through the Vitreoretinal Border
- •6.6.1 The Role of the Blood–Retinal Barrier
- •6.6.1.1 Amino Acid Transport
- •6.6.1.2 P-Glycoprotein
- •6.6.1.3 Organic Cationic Transporters
- •6.6.1.4 Organic Anion Transporters
- •6.6.1.5 Other Transporters
- •6.7 The Ageing Vitreous
- •6.7.1 Underlying Mechanisms of Vitreous Degeneration
- •6.7.2 Physical Changes Involved in the Ageing Vitreous
- •6.7.2.1 Pre-Clinical Model of Ageing Vitreous
- •6.7.2.2 Effects of Vitreous Liquefaction on Intravitreal Drug Delivery
- •6.7.3 Vitrectomised Eyes
- •6.7.3.1 Intravitreal Drug Distribution and Clearance in Silicone Oil
- •6.7.4 Role of Ocular Movements in Disordered Vitreous
- •6.8 Concluding Remarks
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Drug Delivery to Posterior Segment Ocular Tissues
- •7.3 Scleral Structure and Drug Delivery
- •7.4 Scleral Permeability: Initial Studies
- •7.5 Sustained-Release Delivery In Vitro
- •7.6 In Vivo Studies
- •7.7 Conclusions and Future Directions
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 Background
- •8.3 Posterior Segment Delivery
- •8.4 Transscleral and Intrascleral Drug Delivery
- •8.5 Suprachoroidal Drug Delivery
- •8.6 Summary
- •References
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Nonbiodegradable Ocular Drug Delivery Systems
- •9.2.1 Retisert
- •9.2.2 Ocusert
- •9.2.3 Vitrasert
- •9.2.4 I-vation
- •9.2.5 Iluvien
- •9.2.6 Nonbiodegradable Matrix Implants
- •9.2.6.2 Punctal Plugs
- •9.3 Medical Applications for Biodegradable Polymers
- •9.3.3 Poly(Ortho Esters)
- •9.3.4 Polyanhydrides
- •9.5.1 Ozurdex™
- •9.5.2 Surodex
- •9.5.3 Verisome
- •9.5.4 Lacrisert
- •9.6.1 Poly(Lactic Acid)-Based Implants
- •9.6.2 PLGA-Based Implants
- •9.6.5 Poly(Ortho Ester)-Based Implants
- •9.6.6 Polyanhydride-Based Implants
- •9.6.7 Other Biodegradable Polymer-Based Implants
- •9.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.2 Manufacturing of Microparticles
- •10.3 Characterization of Microparticles
- •10.3.1 Morphological Characterization of Microparticles
- •10.3.2 Particle Size Analysis and Distribution
- •10.3.3 Infrared Absorption Spectrophotometry (IR)
- •10.3.4 Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)
- •10.3.5 X-Ray Diffraction
- •10.3.6 Gel Permeation Chromatography (GPC)
- •10.3.7 Determination of Drug Loading Efficiency
- •10.3.8 “In Vitro” Release Studies
- •10.3.8.1 Additives in Microspheres
- •10.4 Sterilization of Microparticles
- •10.5 Calculation of the Dose of Microparticles for Injection
- •10.6 Injectability Studies
- •10.7 In Vivo Studies
- •10.7.1 In Vivo Injection of Microparticles
- •10.7.2 Ocular Disposition and Cellular Uptake
- •10.7.3 Tolerance of Microparticles
- •10.7.4 In Vivo Degradation of PLA and PLGA Microparticles
- •10.8 In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation
- •10.9 Microparticles for the Treatment of Posterior Segment Diseases. Animal Models and Human Studies
- •10.9.1 Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR)
- •10.9.2 Uveitis
- •10.9.3 Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
- •10.9.4 Diabetic Retinopathy
- •10.9.5 Macular edema
- •10.9.6 Acute Retinal Necrosis (ARN)
- •10.9.7 Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Retinitis
- •10.9.8 Choroidal Neovascularization
- •10.9.9 Diseases Affecting the Optic Nerve
- •10.9.11 Microparticles in Retinal Repair
- •10.10 Conclusions
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Nanoparticles
- •11.2.1 Polymer Nanoparticles
- •11.2.2 Liposomes and Lipid Nanoparticles
- •11.2.3 Micelles
- •11.2.4 Protein Nanoparticles
- •11.2.5 Carbohydrate Nanoparticles
- •11.2.6 Dendrimers
- •11.2.7 Combination Nanosystems
- •11.3 Using Nanotechnology to Improve Ocular Therapeutics
- •11.3.1 Improving Patient Compliance
- •11.3.2 Increasing Drug Retention and Sustained Release
- •11.3.3 Increasing Permeability and Tissue Partitioning
- •11.3.4 Targeting Nanotherapies
- •11.3.5 Intracellular Trafficking
- •11.4 Alternative Approaches to Improve Ocular Therapeutics
- •11.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.2 Hydrogel Technology
- •12.6 Future Directions
- •References
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.2 General Design Considerations
- •13.2.1 Administration Site
- •13.2.2 Body Design
- •13.2.3 Port Design
- •13.2.4 Vacuum and Pressure
- •13.2.5 Flushing and Fluid Replacement
- •13.2.5.1 Active Pumps
- •13.2.5.2 Passive Systems
- •13.2.5.3 Solid Refill
- •13.2.6 Contamination Potential
- •13.3 Historical Influences
- •13.3.1 Infusion Pumps
- •13.3.2 Glaucoma Drainage Devices
- •13.3.3 Pioneering of Refill Procedure in the Eye
- •13.4 Ophthalmic Refillable Devices
- •13.4.1 Invasiveness and Refilling Frequency
- •13.4.2 Intravitreal Delivery Through the Pars Plana
- •13.4.3 Episcleral Implantation for Trans-Scleral Delivery
- •13.4.4 Subretinal and Suprachoroidal Implantation
- •13.4.5 Lens Capsule Delivery
- •13.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2 Current Methods of Drug Delivery to the Eye
- •14.3 Improved Methods of Drug Delivery to the Eye Using Microneedles
- •14.3.1 Intrastromal Delivery to the Cornea Using Coated Microneedles
- •14.3.3 Suprachoroidal Delivery Using Hollow Microneedles
- •14.4 Microneedle Types and Other Applications
- •14.4.1 Poke and Apply
- •14.4.2 Coat and Poke
- •14.4.3 Poke and Release
- •14.4.4 Poke and Flow
- •14.5 Discussion
- •14.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.1.1 General Mechanisms of Iontophoretic Drug Delivery
- •15.1.2 The Shunt Pathway
- •15.1.3 The Flip–Flop Gating Mechanism
- •15.1.4 Electro-Osmosis
- •15.2 Ocular Drug Delivery: The Past and the Future
- •15.3 Ophthalmic Applications of Iontophoresis
- •15.3.1 Transconjunctival Iontophoresis
- •15.3.1.1 Transconjunctival Iontophoresis of Antimitotics
- •15.3.1.2 Transconjunctival Iontophoresis of Anesthetics
- •15.3.2 Transcorneal Iontophoresis
- •15.3.2.1 Transcorneal of Fluorescein Iontophoresis for Aqueous Humor Dynamic Studies
- •15.3.2.2 Transcorneal Iontophoresis of Antibiotics
- •15.3.2.3 Transcorneal Iontophoresis of Antiviral Drugs
- •15.3.2.4 Other Drugs for Transcorneal Iontophoresis
- •15.3.2.5 Is Transcorneal Iontophoresis Safe?
- •15.4 Transscleral Iontophoresis
- •15.4.1 Transscleral Iontophoresis of Antibiotics
- •15.4.2 Transscleral Iontophoresis of Antiviral Drugs
- •15.4.3 Transscleral Iontophoresis of Anti-Inflammatory Drugs
- •15.4.3.1 Aspirin
- •15.4.3.2 Glucocorticoids
- •15.4.3.3 Transscleral Iontophoresis of Carboplatin
- •15.4.3.4 Is Transscleral Iontophoresis Safe?
- •15.4.3.5 Transscleral Iontophoresis for High Molecular Weight Compounds and Proteins
- •15.4.3.6 Clinical Application of Transscleral Iontophoresis
- •15.5 Applications of Iontophoresis to Ocular Gene Therapy
- •15.6 Future Developments
- •References
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2 Background
- •16.2.1 Intravitreal Injections
- •16.2.2 Impact of Genetics
- •16.3 Better Tools for Delivery and Treatment
- •16.3.1 Barriers to Success
- •16.3.2 Physics-Based Approaches
- •16.3.2.1 Physical Methods to Deliver Drugs to a Target Cell in the Posterior Segment
- •16.3.2.2 History of Electrical Fields in Medicine
- •16.3.2.3 Safety Concerns with Electric Fields
- •16.3.2.4 Definitions of Electric Field Methods
- •16.3.2.5 Advantages of Electric Fields for DNA Transfection vs. Viral Mediated DNA Delivery
- •16.3.2.6 Problems of In Vivo Electric Field Applications
- •16.3.2.7 Possible Strategies to Improve Electric Field-Mediated Drug Delivery
- •16.3.3 Experiences with Iontophoresis
- •16.3.3.1 Examples of Iontophoresis
- •16.3.3.2 Summary of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Iontophoresis
- •16.3.4 Experiences with Electroporation
- •16.3.4.1 Examples of Electroporation in Living Animals
- •16.3.4.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of Electroporation
- •16.4 Outstanding Issues in Electric Fields for the Delivery of Drugs
- •16.5 Summary
- •References
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.2 Routes of Protein Administration
- •17.2.1 Topical
- •17.2.2 Intracameral
- •17.2.3 Intravitreal
- •17.2.4 Periocular (Transscleral)
- •17.2.5 Suprachoroidal
- •17.2.6 Subretinal
- •17.2.7 Systemic
- •17.3 Advantages and Challenges of Protein Delivery
- •17.4 Current Development Strategies
- •17.4.1 Pure Protein
- •17.4.2 PEGylation
- •17.4.4 Liposomes
- •17.4.5 Stem Cells
- •17.4.6 Implants
- •17.5 Case Studies
- •17.6 Ophthalmic Protein Formulation Development
- •17.6.1 Protein Biosynthesis
- •17.6.2 Preformulation Studies
- •17.6.3 Selection of Excipients
- •17.6.4 Optimization of Process Variables
- •17.7 Specifications and Regulatory Guidelines
- •17.8 Conclusions
- •References
- •18.1 Need for Suspension Development for the Back of the Eye
- •18.2 Background
- •18.3 Development of Drug Suspensions Intended for the Back of the Eye
- •18.3.1 Drug Suspensions
- •18.3.1.1 Physical Pharmacy Principles that Explain the Stability and Formulation of Suspensions
- •18.3.1.2 Formulation Methodology
- •18.3.1.3 Manufacturing Process
- •18.3.2 Factors To Be Considered in Suspension Development for the Back of the Eye
- •18.3.2.1 Formulation Development and Evaluation
- •18.3.2.2 In Situ Forming Suspensions, Selection of Drug Form for Suspension, and Polymeric Microparticle Suspension
- •18.3.2.3 Clinical Studies on Safety
- •18.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Drug Product Approval Process
- •19.3 Considerations for Back of the Eye Treatments
- •19.4 Adaptive Trial Design
- •19.5 Drug-Device Combinations
- •19.6 Product Summary Basis of Approval Reviews
- •19.6.1 OZURDEX™
- •19.6.2 LUCENTIS™
- •19.7 Summary
- •References
- •20.1 Background
- •20.2 FDA Endpoints
- •20.3 Endpoints for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (Table 20.1)
- •20.4 FDA Guidelines for Other Retinal Diseases
- •20.5 Endpoint for Geographic Atrophy
- •20.6 Endpoint for Retinal Vein Occlusion
- •20.7 Future Endpoints
- •References
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.2 Ocular Physiology and Pathology
- •21.2.1 Ocular Inflammation
- •21.2.2 Neovascularization
- •21.2.3 Degeneration
- •21.3 Current Therapies for Key Back of the Eye Disorders
- •21.3.1 Age-Related Macular Degeneration
- •21.3.1.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.1.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.1.3 Current Research Focused on Identifying New Targets
- •21.3.2 Diabetic Retinopathy
- •21.3.2.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.2.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.3 Retinopathy of Prematurity
- •21.3.3.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.3.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use and in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.4 Degenerative Conditions
- •21.3.4.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.4.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.5 Opportunistic Infections
- •21.3.5.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.5.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.6 Autoimmune Disease
- •21.3.6.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.6.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •22.1 Bile Acids as Anti-Apoptotic Neuroprotectants
- •22.3 Potential Need for Local Delivery of Bile Acids as Neuroprotectants
- •22.4 Preliminary Studies of Ocular Delivery of Bile Acids
- •22.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Index
422 |
R. Baid et al. |
the protein as well as 20–30% decrease in potency (http:\\www.ema.europa.eu). Protein-based therapeutics have often developed immunogenicity in patients leading to rapid drug clearance and even life threatening side effects such as anaphylactic shock. For example, muromonab-CD3, an immunosuppressant has been reported to cause immunogenicity in about 50% of patients; however, recent advancements in protein formulation have a lower frequency of immunogenicity. For example, the clinical trial for ranibizumab detected immunogenicity in only 1–8% of patients (Yoon et al. 2010).
17.4 Current Development Strategies
17.4.1 Pure Protein
The delivery of protein in its unmodified form is currently the most common approach due to the prolonged half-life of proteins in the vitreous humor, unlike in the plasma (Kompella and Lee 1991), which allows administration once in several weeks. For instance, ranibizumab, FDA-approved anti-VEGF therapy for treating CNV associated with wet AMD, is administered in its native form into the vitreous cavity. This protein has a vitreal half-life of 3 days and allows intravitreal administration of 0.5 mg of drug in the clinic once every 6 weeks. Bevacizumab, another FDA-approved drug for metastatic colorectal cancer is also administered intravitreally (off-label use) for treating CNV, central retinal vein occlusion, and PDR. Its vitreal half-life is found to be 4.32 days in a rabbit model following intravitreal administration of 1.25 mg in 50 mL. Concentrations above 10 mg/mL were maintained in the vitreous humor for bevacizumab for up to 30 days following intravitreal injection (Bakri et al. 2007b). When ranibizumab was administered at a 0.5-mg dose in 50 mL volume in the same rabbit model, its vitreal half-life was found to be only 2.88 days, but the concentration of 10 mg/mL of ranibizumab was detectable in the vitreous humor similar to bevacizumab for 29 days (Bakri et al. 2007a). In phase I clinical trials of VEGF Trap-Eye 21 patients suffering from neovascular AMD were followed. Intravitreal injection of VEGFtrap up to 4 mg showed no ocular inflammation (Nguyen et al. 2009). There was a mean decrease in excess foveal thickness for all patients up to 104.5 mm at 6 weeks, and the visual acuity increased to 4.43 letters. Although the intravitreal half-life of VEGF Trap-Eye is unknown, it was predicted to be 4–5 days in primate eye based on its molecular weight. Further, based on the molecular model it was predicted that significant intravitreal VEGF-binding activity comparable to that of ranibizumab was maintained for 10–12 weeks after single injection of 1.15 mg of VEGF Trap-Eye (Stewart and Rosenfeld 2008). Thus, relatively high retention rates have been observed after intravitreal delivery of protein therapeutics in their native form and these agents proved to be efficacious in treating several diseases.
17 Protein Drug Delivery and Formulation Development |
423 |
17.4.2 PEGylation
PEGylation (attachment of polyethylene glycol, PEG) is one approach to enhance the half-life of protein drugs, thereby increasing their duration of action. PEG moieties are long-chain amphiphilic hydrocarbons having repeated units of ethylene glycol (linear or branched) with a hydrophobic chain and hydrophilic ends. Some PEG containing pharmaceutical products are approved by the FDA for internal use. PEGs are generally considered as inert and possess very low toxicity. For example, PEG 300 showed acute oral toxicity in rats at LD50 (lethal dose that kills half of the rats) of 27,500 mg/kg (material safety datasheets). For PEGs with higher molecular weight such as PEG 9000, the LD50 can be as high as 50,000 mg/kg (material safety datasheets). PEGs can be branched or linear structures having different molecular weights ranging from 200 to 40,000 Da. PEGylation can affect the conformation, electrostatic binding, and hydrophobicity of the protein molecule (Harris and Chess 2003). It is hypothesized that PEGylation can reduce protein immunogenicity by coating the protein and preventing its recognition by the immune system (Harris and Chess 2003). PEG-1900 and PEG-5000 covalently attached to bovine serum albumin increased its size almost 2 and 4 times, respectively, producing a substantial change in the physical and chemical properties of the protein such as solubility and movement in acrylamide gel during electrophoresis (Abuchowski et al. 1977). Antiserum against PEG-1900-albumin and albumin alone were raised in rabbits. Antiserum against PEG-1900-albumin did not react with PEG-1900-albumin, which is a clear indication that PEG-1900-albumin does not elicit an immune response. When this antiserum was tested against either PEG-5000-albumin or albumin in immunodiffusion plates, it showed no reaction with either PEG-5000-albumin or albumin alone. Further, antiserum against native albumin was tested against albumin modified with increasing amount of PEG-5000. It was found that the higher the PEGylation of amino group of albumin with PEG-5000, the lower the antiserum binding. PEGylation of albumin to approximately 42% and higher led to complete loss of its reactivity with the antiserum. Thus, PEGylation seems to be an efficient way to mask the immunogenic responses during protein therapy, potentially leading to reduced incidence of immunotoxicity.
PEG is soluble in both water and organic solvents, and has high hydration and hydrodynamic volume, resulting in reduction of systemic clearance and alteration in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the protein (Delgado et al. 1992; Israelachvili 1997; Mehvar 2000; Harris and Chess 2003). The plasma halflife of PEG is highly dependent on its molecular weight; the half-life ranges from 18 min to 1 day with an increase in PEG molecular weight from 6000 to 190,000 (Yamaoka et al. 1994). PEGylation can mask the protein from various enzymes (e.g., proteases). This not only reduces the proteolysis, but also toxicity which might occur due to the formation of unwanted metabolites. Thus, PEGylation increases protein/macromolecule stability and prolongs tissue retention time.
Despite its advantages, PEGylation causes partial loss in biological activity, especially when it is nonspecifically conjugated. The attachment of PEG molecules
424 |
R. Baid et al. |
to new investigational protein drugs is becoming a routine exercise due to the potential to increase drug retention time and reduce immunogenicity. However, as is the case for a new investigational protein drug, trichosanthin (a type I ribosome inactivating protein drug is currently under investigation for the treatment of HIV-1), PEGylation often reduces protein activity (Veronese 2001). When 20 kDa PEG was nonspecifically conjugated to trichosanthin, the ribosome inactivating activity of the protein decreased by 20–30 fold as characterized by the decrease in half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) (Wang et al. 2004). However, the loss in biological activity can be in most cases compensated by the substantial increase in the circulatory half-life of the molecule, which ultimately makes the molecule more efficient in comparison to the non-PEGylated moiety. N-terminal PEGylation or other site specific PEGylation have also been recently developed to overcome this problem in part (Israelachvili 1997; Veronese et al. 2001; Harris and Chess 2003; Nie et al. 2006; Veronese and Mero 2008). The protein’s N-terminal amino group is the most exploited moiety for such conjugation. PEGs are available in various active derivatives with functional groups such as carbonate, ester, and aldehyde. These functional groups can react with free amino groups within the protein (e.g., lysine residues) to form a covalent bond. Controlling the pH of the reaction media has resulted in site specific PEGylation (Lee et al. 2003). N-terminal mono PEGylation has been successfully achieved for epidermal growth factor (EGF) by PEGylating EGF with PEG-propionaldehyde derivatives (Lee et al. 2003).
Aptamers, short oligonucleotides or peptides, 15–60 bases in length (Jarosch et al. 2006), have very short half-lives (Nimjee et al. 2005) due to the presence of nucleases in the body that rapidly degrade nucleic acid aptamers. PEGylation of aptamer was successfully used in an ophthalmic formulation to increase the half-life of the parent molecule. The half-life of the unmodified aptamer was found to be just 108 s in serum as compared to 10 ± 4 days for pegaptanib (PEGylated aptamer available as Avastin®) (Ng et al. 2006). Intravitreal injection of this molecule proved to be of therapeutic value in scavenging VEGF and treating wet AMD.
17.4.3 Microand Nano-Particles
Due to the limitations of current delivery systems and the problems associated with delivering macromolecules and small molecules to the posterior segment of the eye, nanoand micro-particles are being investigated. Nanoparticles are spherical particles of lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, or polymers having a diameter within the nanometer range. Microparticles are polymeric particles with a size ranging from one micrometer to several microns. Poly (lactic acid), poly (glycolic acid), and related biodegradable and biocompatible polymers and copolymers are the most widely used polymers to synthesize sustained release of microand nano-particles, which have promising applications in the eye.
Poly (lactic acid) (PLA) microparticles and nanoparticles were assessed for their ability to sustain retinal delivery of budesonide, a corticosteroid capable of
17 Protein Drug Delivery and Formulation Development |
425 |
inhibiting VEGF, following posterior subconjunctival administration (Kompella et al. 2003). PLA nanoparticles encapsulated with budesonide initially released approximately 25% of the loaded drug by day 1 and then the rate of drug release slowly declined to 0% after 10 days. However, PLA microparticles loaded with budesonide showed no initial burst and maintained a release rate of ~7 mg/day for 25 days. Assessment of retinal delivery in vivo in a Sprague Dawley rat model indicated more prolonged retinal drug delivery with microparticles compared to nanoparticles. A single periocular injection of biodegradable poly(lactide-co- glycolide) microparticles loaded with celecoxib was more effective than plain drug suspension and alleviated vascular leakage associated with diabetic retinopathy (Amrite et al. 2006). Following intravitreal injection, PLA microparticles sustained the intravitreal delivery of antiangiogenic low molecular weight drug for at least 3 months (Shelke et al. 2011). Poly(lactide-co-glycolide) microparticles are also useful in sustaining peptide drug delivery (Koushik and Kompella 2004). Functionalized nanoparticles capable of rapidly entering and crossing corneal and conjunctival barriers might be useful in enhancing delivery of macromolecules to the anterior as well as posterior segment eye tissues (Kompella et al. 2006).
17.4.4 Liposomes
Liposomes are closed spherical bilayers entrapping an aqueous core. The lipid bilayer can be comprised of phospholipids, cholesterol, and other lipid moieties such as cardiolipin, which is similar to the composition of biological membranes. Macromolecules can be entrapped either in the lipid bilayer or within the aqueous core of the liposome depending on the lipophilicity of the protein or peptide drug; lipophilic agents prefer the lipid bilayer, while hydrophilic agents prefer the aqueous core. The residence time of the liposomal formulation of bevacizumab was significantly increased in the vitreous of rabbit eye compared to bevacizumab alone (Abrishami et al. 2009). The vitreous concentration of the liposome formulation of bevacizumab in a rabbit model was twofold (48 vs. 28 mg/mL) compared to bevacizumab alone after 28 days and almost 5 times higher after 48 days (16 vs. 3.3 mg/mL), as monitored by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
17.4.5 Stem Cells
Once the visual acuity of patients has been reduced due to the loss of photoreceptors and retinal neurons, vision loss cannot be reversed with the use of anti-VEGF therapies or by PDT. Introducing stem cells that resemble retinal neurons and photoreceptors may be the key to regain visual acuity. Depending on the retinal disease, neuroretinal cells (photoreceptors, bipolar cells, ganglion cells, and glial cells), retinal pigment epithelial cells, and vascular endothelial cells may be replaced by
